Results
Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus | 502 F.Supp.2d 103 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 2398517 (D.D.C.) | Plaintiffs-ASPCA filed suit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc, under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs allege that FEI routinely beats elephants, chains them for long periods of time, hits them with sharp bull hooks, breaks baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly removes baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned. This conduct, plaintiffs contend, violates the "take" provision of the ESA. In the court's opinion regarding defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court held that the pre-Act exemption does not insulate defendant from claims of taking under the ESA. However, the court found that the captive-bred wildlife (CBW) permit held by defendant does not allow for challenge under a citizen-suit provision. | Case |
| CA - Swap Meets - Chapter 10. Sale of Animals at Swap Meets. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122370 - 122374 | CA HLTH & S § 122370 - 122374 | This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter. | Statute |
| New Zealand - Anmal Welfare - New Zealand Code for Meat Chickens | The purpose of this code is to set out the minimum standard of care that owners of meat chickens (broilers) and persons who are in charge of them must achieve order to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act). The minimum standards in this code have a legal effect under the Act (see Appendix II: Legislative Requirements). Example indicators do not have a legal effect but can be used to demonstrate whether minimum standards are being met. This code also includes information and recommended best practices which are intended to encourage all those responsible for implementing the code to adopt a standard of husbandry, care and handling exceeding that required by minimum standards. | Administrative | ||
| AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care | AS § 09.65.097 | AK ST § 09.65.097 | This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct. | Statute |
| Ascencio v. ADRU Corporation | 2014 WL 204212 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d) |
A woman, who suffers from a disability that is accompanied by deep depression and anxiety, went to a fast food restaurant with her mother and her two service dogs. Upon entering the establishment, the employees refused to serve them, forced them to leave, and retaliated against them by calling the police and threatening them with arrest. The woman and her mother sued the fast food restaurant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related California statutes. When the fast food restaurant failed to file an answer, the court entered a default judgment against the fast food restaurant; awarded the plaintiffs with damages, court costs and attorney fees; and placed a permanent injunction against the fast food restaurant. |
Case | |
| Thomas v. Stenberg | 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 24 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) | 2012 WL 1925657 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.); 206 Cal.App.4th 654 |
While driving his motorcycle down a private road that had easement access, the plaintiff was injured by a charging cow. Arguing the defendant had a duty to warn of the presence of an unconfined and inherently dangerous animal, the plaintiff brought a negligence and a premise liability suit against the defendant. Upon appeal, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant was strictly liable for the cow's actions; the court, therefore, ruled in favor of the defendant. |
Case |
| Whaling in the Antarctic | Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan), 2010 Judgment. | In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end. | Case | |
| Canada - Nova Scotia Statutes - Sheep Protection Act | R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 424, s. 1 - 18(4) | This set of Nova Scotia laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, any person may kill any dog which is found pursuing, worrying, wounding, killing or injuring sheep or is found straying at any time, and not under proper control, upon premises where sheep are usually kept. Within forty-eight hours after an owner discovers that one or more of his or her sheep have been killed or injured by a dog or dogs, he or she shall notify a sheep valuer who immediately makes a report in writing giving in detail the extent and amount of the damage. Where a dog is known to have killed or injured sheep, the owner on being duly notified shall within forty-eight hours cause the dog to be killed. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. William | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4587250 (D.Virgin Islands) | Defendants charged with unlawfully taking an endangered species and unlawfully possessing, carrying and transporting an endangered species within the United States in violation of the Endangered Species Act filed motions to suppress all evidence, including undersized lobsters and a sea turtle seized in connection with their stop and arrest after they had been stopped on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. The District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix suppressed the evidence, finding that although the approaching police officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was taking place at the time the stop was made, the subsequent confinement of Defendants and search of their vehicle exceeded the limited purpose of the investigative stop. | Case | |
| United States v. Kum | 309 F.Supp.2d 1084 (E.D. Wis. 2004) |
Defendant convicted for conspiracy to smuggle endangered wildlife into the United States. Government moved for upward departure from sentencing range. Held: Court would not depart upward to reflect cruel treatment of animals (other holdings generally unrelated). |
Case |