Results

Environmental Groups sued the National Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Department of Commerce for making regulations which allowed swordfish longline fishing along the Hawaii coast, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Court found that because the regulations were made under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson Act), and because that Act had a 30-day time limit for when challenges to regulations could be made, the environmental groups has not brought their challenge to the regulations in time.

The following comprises Fort Worth, Texas' animal-related ordinances. A person commits an offense if the person owns, keeps, harbors, or has custody of any female dog or cat over 6 months or of any male dog or cat over 8 months of age that is unaltered unless such person has a valid intact pet permit. Another section makes it unlawful to interfere with an animal care and control officer while engaged in the performance of his or her duties. The city outlines sanitation standards for animals kept by owners and limits the number of dogs and cats one may keep to 3 of each species. In addition, the city declares that a person who keeps a dangerous animal (as defined) other than a dog as commits a public nuisance, and outlines specific registration and enclosure requirements for dangerous animals. A subsequent section describes the dangerous dog provisions. In addition to registration, licensing, rabies vaccination, and impoundment provisions, the city has some interesting ordinances related to the keeping of miniature swine, unlawful acts of docking and cropping, and the procedure for picking up of dead animals by the city.

Cattle owners sued the state and its agricultural commission for negligently performing the duty to use proper steps to prevent the spread of a contagious disease after they bought dairy cows at a sale that subsequently infected their herd. The owners were forced to sell their herd of dairy cows. The Supreme Court held that the owners could recover the difference between fair market value of their herd before and after it contracted the disease, loss of profits due to diminished milk production from cows before sale, value of silage or feed that had been contaminated, and reasonable costs of disinfecting the farm, but not for loss of profits for the dairy operation after they sold the cows, or loss of progeny.