Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6636
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coos County Board of County Com'rs v. Kempthorne | 531 F.3d 792 (9th Cir., 2008) | 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7939, 2008 WL 2522202 (C.A.9 (Or.)) | The issue here is whether FWS has an enforceable duty promptly to withdraw a threatened species from the protections of the ESA after a five-year agency review mandated by the Act found that the species does not fit into a protected population category. The species at issue here are murrelets-small, dove-sized birds that feed primarily on sea life and nest in coastal mature and old-growth forests. This Court concluded that Coos County has not alleged a failure to perform a nondiscretionary act or duty imposed by the ESA, whether premised on the petition process deadlines or on the agency's more general duty to act on its own determinations. | Case |
| MD - Research - § 21-259.3. Prohibition on Testing Cosmetics on Animals | MD Code, Health - General, § 21-259.3 | This Maryland law, effective in 2022, states that a manufacturer may not sell or offer for sale in the State a cosmetic if the manufacturer knows or reasonably should have known that the final product or any individual component of the final product was developed or manufactured using animal testing that was conducted or contracted by or for the manufacturer or any entity that supplies, directly or through a third party, any ingredient used by a manufacturer in the formulation of a cosmetic on or after January 1, 2022. Limited exceptions exist. A person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty up to a $5,000 penalty for the first offense and up to $1,000 for each subsequent offense. | Statute | |
| VT - Swine, feral - § 3350. The disposition of feral swine | 20 V.S.A. § 3350 | VT ST T. 20 § 3350 | This law, enacted in 2020, authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to destroy or euthanize a feral swine in accordance with the requirements of 10 V.S.A. § 4709(f). | Statute |
| Cottongame v. State | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. 2014), unpublished | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. July 17, 2014), MEMORANDUM OPINION DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b) | Despite an ordinance restricting the number of cats a person can own to three unless a permit was obtained, an officer decided not to enforce the ordinance against the appellant because she was helping with the feral-cat problem in the city and because “she was ... attempting to bring into compliance [her] animal rescue.” When the officer left his job, however, a neighbor complained and an investigation took place. The investigating officer noted everything in the house was covered in cat litter, there was no carpet in the home, and cat urine was on the living-room floor. The smell of cat urine and feces also sickened the officer to the point that he had to leave the house to get fresh air. The State filed a complaint alleging Appellant's violation of the ordinance. A jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as alleged in the complaint and assessed her punishment at $75 plus court costs. Appellant appealed from her conviction for violating a city ordinance regarding the number of animals that may be kept without a permit. In her first issue, the appellant asserted that her conviction violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the city “selectively enforced its purported ordinance that prohibits any person from having possession of more than three cats without a permit.” The court, however, found that there was no evidence before the trial court indicating that appellant was singled out for enforcement or that her selection for enforcement was based on anything other than a valid citizen complaint. In her second issue, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court, however, found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant was in violation of the ordinance. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case |
| AL - Cruelty - Alabama Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-14 - 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114 | AL ST § 13A-11-14 to 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114 | These Alabama provisions contain the state's anti-cruelty laws. The first section (under Article 1 of Chapter 11) provides that a person commits a Class A misdemeanor if he or she subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, neglect (as long as he or she has custody of the animal), or kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another. However, if any person intentionally or knowingly violates Section 13A-11-14, and the act of cruelty or neglect involved the infliction of torture to the animal, that person has committed an act of aggravated cruelty and is guilty of a Class C felony. The next section (Article 11 of Chapter 11 entitled, "Cruelty to Cats and Dogs"), provides that a person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she intentionally tortures any dog or cat or skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony. | Statute |
| Robert Zauper, Plaintiff v. Michael Lababit and Jane Doe Lababit, and the marital community comprised thereof; and Does 1-10, De |
This Kitsap County, Washington judgment summary, findings of fact, and conclusions of law found defendants liable for five claims including simple negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and gross negligence. In the award of damages, plaintiff received a total judgment in the amount of $75,501.09, which included $50,000 for intrinsic value and $25,000 for emotional distress. |
Pleading | ||
| Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co. | 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 (Cal.App.3.Dist.) | 29 Cal.App.4th 1620 (Cal.App.3.Dist.) |
This California case concerned a personal injury action arising from a collision between the plaintiff's car and defendant's black Angus bull, which was lying on the highway at night. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In reversing this decision, the Court of Appeal held that the open range law does not itself define the duty owners of cattle owe nor does it exempt them from the duty of ordinary care. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - DELHI AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1994 | The Act, specific to the National Capital Region of Delhi, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle such as cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The Act bans the transport of cattle from Delhi to places outside Delhi for the purpose of slaughter. Persons who wish to export cattle must apply for a permit and submit an undertaking that the cattle shall not be slaughtered. The burden of proof is on the person who is accused under the Act of the slaughter, transport, export, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of agricultural cattle. | Statute | ||
| State v. Amos | 17 N.E.3d 9 (2017) | 2014 -Ohio- 3097 | After witnessing the 73 year old defendant-appellant emerge from area by the veterinary's dumpster holding an empty, wire cage animal trap, an employee of the clinic followed the defendant-appellant's car and obtained the vehicle's license plate number. Upon returning to the dumpster, the employee found a kitten with matted eyes that seemed unhealthy. The defendant-appellant was charged with one count of animal abandonment in violation of R.C. 959.01 and was found guilty. Defendant-appellant appealed her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a keeper or, if she was a keeper, the court erred in determining that she abandoned the animal. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that once the defendant captured the animal in a cage, she assumed the responsibility that she would treat the animal humanely and could therefore be considered a “keeper.” Since Amos captured the animal and released it in another location without taking steps to make sure the animal would be found, the Ohio Court of Appeals also held that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant had “abandoned” the animal. The judgment was therefore affirmed. | Case |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Animals | S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1, s. 374 - 380 | This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan, Canada dangerous animal laws. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting, or trains, torments, badgers, baits or otherwise uses an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to make unprovoked attacks on persons or domestic animals is guilty of an offence. In addition, a peace officer or designated officer may destroy any animal that he or she finds injuring or viciously attacking a person or a domestic animal. The Act outlines the actions that result in an animal being declared dangerous (i.e., chased a person in a vicious or threatening manner, bit a person or domestic animal without provocation, etc.) and the procedure to declare such an animal dangerous. | Statute |