Results

Displaying 61 - 70 of 5880
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 450 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2006) 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,102, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6933

The issue in this case is whether the Endangered Species Act requires the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to complete formal designation of critical habitat for an endangered fish species , the threespine stickleback ("stickleback"), a small, scaleless freshwater fish, as an endangered species in 1970 under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), listed over thirty-five years ago. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") awarded CEMEX, Inc., a contract to mine fifty-six million tons of sand and gravel from a location in Los Angeles County's Soledad Canyon. Although the mining would not take place within the stickleback's habitat, the project involves pumping water from the Santa Clara River and could cause portions of the river to run dry periodically. Parts of the Santa Clara River commonly dry out during the summer season, trapping stickleback in isolated pools. The Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed suit in 2002, claiming that the Service violated the ESA by failing to complete the designation of critical habitat for the stickleback. In affirming the lower court's decision, the Ninth Circuit, held that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Service to decide not to designate critical habitat for the stickleback. The Service was not required to ensure compliance with federal and state laws before issuing an ITS (incidental take statement) to CEMEX, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking extra-record exhibits offered to establish a new rationale for attacking the Service's decision.

Case
U.S. v. Kapp 419 F.3d 666 (2005, 7th Cir.(Ill.)) 2005 WL 1994104 (7th Cir.(Ill.))

A jury convicted William Kapp for multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act connected with the killing of, and trafficking in, endangered tigers and leopards and their meat, hides, and other parts. On appeal, Kapp claims he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court erroneously admitted certain evidence. Kapp also argues that the manner in which he was sentenced violated the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on all counts, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary ruling.  His conviction was, therefore, affirmed, but a limited remand was ordered to determine whether Kapp should be resentenced .

Case
CT - Fisheries & Wildlife - Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game. § 26-1. Definitions C. G. S. A. § 26-1 CT ST § 26-1

Definitions for the Connecticut Statute for Fisheries and Wildlife

Statute
England and Wales - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act 2006 Animal Welfare Act of 2006 An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare. Activities that constitute offenses include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending animal fighting. Nothing in the Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing. Statute
Moser v. Pennsylvania Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Slip Copy, 2012 WL 4932046 (E.D. Penn.)

After the defendants confiscated mare without a warrant and required that the plaintiff surrender another mare and a few other animals in order to avoid prosecution, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for violating the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Civil Rights Act and Pennsylvania statutory and common law. However, the plaintiffs lost when the district court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment on all counts.

Case
Davis v. Gaschler 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 (Cal.App.3.Dist.) 11 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Cal.App.3.Dist.)

In this California case, plaintiff noticed two women in the process of assisting an injured dog, which was owned by defendants, while driving down the road. Plaintiff, an experienced dog breeder and handler, assisted the women and was bitten by plaintiff's dog. The dog had not been vaccinated for rabies, and plaintiff was required to undergo antirabies treatment. Plaintiff sought appeal of the lower court's granting of summary judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that defendants had the burden to establish that this was a case of primary assumption of the risk-where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, defendants owed no legal duty to plaintiff. The court held that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to impose a duty on the part of defendants, based on allegations that they owned and negligently controlled the dog that bit plaintiff.

Case
Queensland - Food Production - Agriculture Standards Act Act No. 36 The main objective of the Act is to provide for the making of standards about agriculture by establishing an administrative framework for the making of standards by the chief executive and by providing appropriate powers to ensure the standards are complied with. This Act was reprinted as at 1 October 2002. The reprint shows the law as amended by all amendments that commenced on or before that day and incorporates all necessary consequential amendments, whether of punctuation, numbering or another kind. Statute
CA - Pigs, Wild - Chapter 7. Wild Pigs West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4650 - 4657 CA FISH & G § 4650 - 4657

These provisions make it unlawful to take any wild pig in California without first procuring a license tag authorizing the taking.  These sections outline the requirements for licenses and require plans for the management of wild pigs. Under these plans, the status and trend of wild pig populations are determined and management units shall be designated within the state.

Statute
AU - Nature Conservation Act 1980 ( ACT) Nature Conservation Act 1980 An Act to make provision for the protection and conservation of native animals and native plants, and for the preservation of areas for those purposes. The Act creates the office of Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service. Statute
Donald HENDRICK and Concerned Citizens for True Horse Protection, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (“USDA”), and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“Aphis”), Defendants. Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2900526 (W.D.Ky.)

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant United States Department of Agriculture's Motion to Dismiss. The Horse Protection Act (HPA) is federal legislation which outlaws the practice of “soring” (harm to the feet or limbs of horses in order to enhance the attractiveness of a light-stepped or high-stepping gait during horse-show performances), which is a particular concern for the breed of Tennessee Walking Horses. Plaintiffs seek to have the Court define “sore” and “scar” beyond the definitions provided in the regulations (specifically the “scar rule”). The court found, however, that any alleged or threatened injury based on the HPA or the Scar Rule has not yet occurred. Mere uncertainty about the HPA and Scar Rule alone does not create an injury in fact.

Case

Pages