Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Hunting of bald eagle prohibited - Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game | C. G. S. A. § 26-93 | CO ST § 30-15-105 | Connecticut law prohibits the harassment and killing of bald eagles. Violation of the statute can result in a fine of not more than $100 or up to thirty days in jail, or both. | Statute | |
| WERTMAN v. TIPPING | 166 So.2d 666 (Fla.App., 1964) |
The plaintiffs, owners of a seven-year-old trained, registered full blood German Shepherd dog, sued the defendants for the loss of this dog from the kennels at the animal hospital owned and operated by the defendant. The dog had been boarded at defendant's place and while there escaped from the kennel and was never found. This case set the wheels in motion for companion animals damages in Florida when the court affirmed a verdict of $1000, for a purebred dog. The court declined in only applying the fair market value and held that recovery could include special or pecuniary value to the owner. |
Case | ||
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board | 891 F.Supp.2d 1212 (D.Kan. 2012) | 2012 WL 3834740 (D.Kan. 2012) |
Upon being informed by the Kansas State Fair Board (KSFB) that it must shield a video depicting graphic images of animals being slaughtered, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sought a preliminary injunction in order to show the video at the Kansas State Fair. PETA argued the shield was unconstitutional. The KSFB sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, that PETA lacked Article Three Standing, and that the defendant was not a section 1983 person. Both motions were denied by the district court. |
Case | |
| VA - Initiatives - Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game | Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game (passed) | This Virginia ballot measure passed in 2000 provided by constitutional amendment that, "The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." It passed with 60% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| CA - Hunting Bears - Chapter 9. Bear | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4750 - 4763 | CA FISH & G § 4750 - 4763 | These sections outline the requirements for taking a bear in California. It is unlawful, for example, to take any bear with a firearm, trap, or bow and arrow without first procuring a license tag authorizing the taking. These sections list the license requirements and other restrictions on the method of taking, including penalties for violations. | Statute | |
| IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER | 52 Agric. Dec. 155 (1993) | 1993 WL 151162 (U.S.D.A.) |
Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute. |
Case | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. Hall | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2790404 (D.Idaho) |
Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project filed the instant action challenging the “90-Day Finding” issued by the Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service that denied protection of the Interior Mountain Quail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service determined that the Petition had failed to provide information demonstrating that the Interior Mountain Quail population is discrete under the ESA. The District Court stated that, in order to qualify as a DPS, a population must “be both discrete and significant.” The court found that the Service's conclusion appropriately determined that this discreteness standard was not met and it provided a rational basis for concluding the Petition had failed to provide evidence of a marked separation between the populations of the same taxon. |
Case | ||
| OK - Rabies - 310:599-3-9.1. Required immunization of dogs, cats, and ferrets | OK ADC 310:599-3-9.1 | OAC 310:599-3-9.1 | This Oklahoma regulation states that the owner or custodian of a domestic dog, cat, or ferret shall cause the animal to be vaccinated against rabies by the time the animal is four months of age and at regular intervals thereafter according to the label directions of an approved rabies vaccine for use in that species, or as prescribed by ordinances or rules adopted by a municipality within whose jurisdiction the animal owner resides. | Administrative | |
| VA - Resarch animals - Article 13. Animal Research | VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6591 - 6593.2 | VA ST § 3.2-6591 - 6593.2 | This Virginia set of laws, enacted in 2018, relates to animal research. The section states that no manufacturer or contract testing facility shall use an animal test method when an alternative test method is available. The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate circuit court for injunctive relief to enforce the provisions of this article. Any person violating these provisions may result in a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 and any court costs and attorney fees. | Statute | |
| WA - Gold Bar - § Sec. 6.02.019 Foster care or rescue or placement. | § 6.02.019 | This municipal code provides the provisions for foster care or rescue placement program for dogs and cats. The code requires the shelter to maintain records. The code also limits the length of fostering and the number of dogs and cats that an individual may foster at one time. | Local Ordinance |