Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carroll v. Rock | 469 S.E.2d 391 (Ga. App., 1996) | 220 Ga.App. 260 (1996) |
After plaintiff's cat escaped while at the defendant's animal hospital, Rock sued Dr. Carroll d/b/a The Animal Care Clinic for conversion or breach of bailment and emotional distress, seeking punitive damages and attorney fees. The court agreed with Carroll that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on punitive and vindictive damages, as vindictive or punitive damages are recoverable only when a defendant acts maliciously, wilfully, or with a wanton disregard of the rights of others. Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also must fail because defendant's conduct was not outrageous or egregious. |
Case |
| wolf timeline blah |
|
Article | ||
| U.S. v. Korn | 2010 WL 5110048 (D. Idaho Dec. 2010) | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d | The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) brought an administrative action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act in connection with Defendants' exotic animal exhibition activities. A judgment was entered for a civil penalty of $57,750 against each Defendant in the administrative action. Defendants have refused to pay, claiming that their due process rights were violated in the underlying administrative proceeding; the judgment, they argued, was therefore void and unenforceable. The United States filed this matter against Defendants seeking to enforce that judgment. Before this Court were the cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion was granted because the Court could not overlook Defendant's absence of any effort to follow up with the Hearing Clerk, considering the many avenues of communication available. There were also no disputed issues of material fact concerning service of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order, and provision of notice of Defendants' appeal rights. Moreover, this Court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider or otherwise vacate the Agency's final order. 7 U.S.C. § 2149(b) also permitted the institution of a civil action by the Attorney General to collect the penalty imposed and no other facts were presented disputing the validity of the administrative judgment imposing the civil penalty. | Case |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Morgenweck | 351 F.Supp.2d (D. Co. 2004) |
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service completed a review of an environmental group petition that requested the Yellowstone cutthroat trout be listed as an endangered species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service refused to list the fish as an endangered species and the environmental group brought an action to set aside the agency's findings. The District Court held in favor of the environmental group reasoning the agency's rejection of the petition was arbitrary and capricious and the review of the petition was not conducted properly. |
Case | |
| CA - Forfeiture - § 599aa. Seizure of fighting animals and birds, paraphernalia, etc.; affidavit of officer; custody of seized p | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599aa | CA PENAL § 599aa | This section provides for the seizure and forfeiture of all birds, animals, paraphernalia, and any other property which is used in the fighting of birds or animals, the training of birds or animals to fight, or to inflict pain or cruelty on fighting animals. The section outlines the procedures for seizure and forfeiture, including what is to be done with seized animals. | Statute |
| Mexico - Cruelty - La Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente | General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection | This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife, the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that, to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles: (1) provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy and healthy; (2) provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species; (3) provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment; (4) allow animals to express their natural behavior; and (5) provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being. | Statute | |
| CITES - Party States |
This is the list of Party States that are members of CITES as of July 2004. |
Treaty | ||
| Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v. Salazar | 606 F.3d 1160, (C.A.9 (Ariz.),2010) | 2010 WL 2220036; 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7030; 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8233 |
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association (Plaintiff) challenged Fish and Wildlife Service's (Defendant) designation of critical habitat for Mexican spotted owls under the Endangered Species Act. The issues were whether Defendant impermissibly included unoccupied areas as critical habitat, and whether Defendant impermissibly employed the baseline approach in its economic analysis. The Court held that 1) Defendant did not designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat because “occupied” areas included areas where the species was likely to be present, and 2) that Defendant properly applied the baseline approach because the economic impact of listing a species as endangered was not intended to be included in the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation. |
Case |
| New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 1999 | Code of Animal Welfare No. 18 | In New Zealand, hens are kept under conditions ranging from large commercial enterprises where the birds are totally reliant on humans for all their daily requirements to free-ranging hens which have access to outdoor runs or pasture. Provided those concerned with the day-to-day care of the hens treat them with skill and consideration, their welfare can be safeguarded under a variety of management systems. The code takes account of five basic requirements: freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, the provision of appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment, of injury, disease or infection, freedom from distress, and the ability to display normal patterns of behavior. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act | 7 USC §§ 2131 - 2160; 18 USC § 49 | 7 USCA §§ 2131 - 2160;18 USCA § 49 | The AWA is, in the main, a regulatory law that seeks to control who may possess or sell certain animals and the living conditions (for non-agricultural, domestic animals) under which the animals must be kept. The law provides for criminal penalties, civil penalties and revocation of permits for violations of the AWA. | Statute |
