|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Pedersen v. Benson||255 F.2d 524 (C.A.D.C. 1958)||103 U.S.App.D.C. 115||
In the matter of Pedersen v. Benson , an importer had a permit to import five giraffes from Kenya, three of which were sold and released to public zoos after the requisite quarantine period. The other two were bought by ‘Africa USA,’ but not released. One of them had a heart attack and died. Plaintiff’s filed suit to have the other one they purchased released. The permits, issued by APHIS, were issued under the further understanding that all the giraffes would be consigned to an approved zoological park (Africa USA is a privately-owned zoo). The Court found no basis to uphold the government’s claim that a government officer may impose an ad hoc system of licensure upon any citizen, or upon any one group, i.e. private zoos, as opposed to another. Here, the importation was specifically permitted for all five animals, and any one animal was just as much a potential carrier of hoof and mouth disease as this particular giraffe. Therefore, this matter was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.
|MN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws||M. S. A. 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01; § 609.226||MN ST 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01||These statutes comprise Minnesota's relevant dog laws. Among the provisions include several laws related to natural resources protection and hunting with dogs, the sale of dogs, and laws related to damage done by dogs.||Statute|
|Zageris v. Whitehall||594 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991)||72 Ohio App.3d 178||
The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property. He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power.
|Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne||579 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)||68 ERC 1146 (2008)||
Environmental and wildlife organizations brought challenge under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] against a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] designating the Western Great Lakes distinct population segment of gray wolves and simultaneously delisting it from the ESA. The court vacated and remanded the Rule to the Fish and Wildlife Service because the ESA was ambiguous about whether it authorized the FWS to simultaneously designate and delist a distinct population segment. There was no Chevron deference due.
|US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct||FWSR3ES20080120; 922201113000; ABC Code: C6||
Identifies the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf and removes this Segment from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with court order, provides an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial interpretations.
|Map of Veterinary Reporting Laws for Animal Cruelty||This map links to laws related to reporting of animal cruelty by veterinarians (note that other animal care professionals and government employees may also have duties to report suspected cruelty). As of 2020, the majority of U.S. states have laws that either mandate or allow reporting (permissive reporting) of suspected animal cruelty by veterinary professionals OR have standalone laws that provide immunity for reporting of suspected cruelty. In most states with a mandatory or voluntary reporting law, a companion immunity provision is also provided. Such an immunity statute protects a veterinarian from any civil liability (and sometimes criminal) arising from the reporting of the abuse. About 20 states have MANDATORY reporting by veterinarians or veterinary professionals (note that some states are mandatory only for animal fighting or aggravated cruelty and Pennsylvania's regulation only applies to reporting abuse by other licensed veterinarians). Approximately 14 states have NO LAWS that deal with veterinary reporting of cruelty or immunity for reporting suspected cruelty. One state (Kentucky) actually prohibits veterinarians from releasing information concerning a client or care of a client's animal, except on the veterinarian's receipt of a written authorization or other form of waiver executed by the client or an appropriate court order or subpoena.||State map|
|AL - Initiatives - Amendment 5, Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife||Amendment 5 (2014)||Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing."||Statute|
|NJ - Hunting - Chapter 7A. Preventing Lawful Taking of Wildlife.||NJSA 23:7A-1 to 23:7A-3||NJ ST 23:7A-1 to 23:7A-3||This set of New Jersey laws comprises the state's hunter harassment provisions. No person may, for the purpose of hindering or preventing the lawful taking of wildlife. A person who violates this act shall be liable to a civil penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each offense. In addition to bringing a civil action for injunctive relief or any other relief provided by law, a person who is adversely affected by a violation of this act may bring a civil action for damages, including punitive damages and special damages, against the violator.||Statute|
|In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation||627 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C.,2009)||2009 WL 1750413 (D.D.C.)||
Plaintiffs Safari Club International and Safari Club International Foundation brought this action under the APA challenging the FWS's legal determination that the listing of the Polar Bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act was a final agency action. At issue here is defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the grounds that plaintiffs fail to challenge a final agency action as required for judicial review under the APA. Alternatively, defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. This Court found that the action challenged by SCI and SCIF is final agency action for purposes of judicial review pursuant to the APA. On the issue of standing, defendants argue that plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed for lack of standing because plaintiffs have not alleged facts to establish that they have suffered an injury-in-fact. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the “procedures in question” threaten a “concrete interest" - an interest in conservation that is impacted by the import ban. Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was denied.
|MA - Cat of commonwealth - Chapter 2. Arms, Great Seal and Other Emblems of the Commonwealth.||M.G.L.A. 2 § 30||MA ST 2 § 30||The Tabby cat shall be the official cat of the Massachusetts commonwealth.||Statute|