Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Taylor | 322 S.W.3d 722 (Tex.App.-Texarkana,2010) | 2010 WL 3023282 (Tex.App.-Texarkana) |
Defendant was charged with a violation of Section 822.005(a)(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code - the dog attack statute. The trial court dismissed the indictment stating that Section 822.005(a)(2) was unconstitutional because it fails to set forth any required culpable mental state. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the statute was constitutional because it does set forth a culpable mental state. "[B]oth the plain language of Sections 822.005(a)(2) and 822.042 impose upon the owner of a dangerous dog the duty to restrain or secure his or her animal." |
Case | |
| American Horse Protection Assoc. v. Andrus | 608 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1979) |
The court stated that the Secretary’s decision to remove 3,500 to 7,000 wild horses in order to maintain the horse population at a permanent level might qualify as “major” federal action and thus require an EIS before removal could occur. While the secretary has wide discretion under the WFRHBA, he has no discretion regarding compliance with NEPA. The court also held that the exercise of jurisdiction by two courts over public lands created no threat of conflicting decisions on range utilization, because the courts only determined whether the land use decision was an informed one. |
Case | ||
| UT - Initiatives - Utah Supermajority for Hunting Initiatives, Proposition 5 (1998) | Utah Supermajority for Hunting Initiatives, Proposition 5 (1998) (passed) | Proposition 5 amends present provisions of the Utah Constitution regarding the power of the people of the state to initiate legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection by majority vote. This proposition requires a two-thirds vote in order to adopt by initiative a state law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife. The measures passed with 56.1% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| The Ecology Center v. Russell | 361 F.Supp.2d 1310 (D.Utah,2005) |
The instant case is a Petition for Review of Agency Action, brought by The Ecology Center and The Aquarius Escalante Foundation (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs seek review of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Acting Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest (the DNF), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. The decision in question is the final approval by the DNF of the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project, (the Project) in which the DNF approved a plan to allow logging in the Griffin Springs area of the DNF. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the plan, claiming that the ROD violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Of particular concern, is the effect upon the northern goshawk. |
Case | ||
| CT - Exotic Pets - § 26-40a. Possession of potentially dangerous animal; Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game | C. G. S. A. § 26-1, § 26-40a; § 26-54, 55, 61 | CT ST § 26-1, § 26-40a; § 26-54, 55, 61 | These Connecticut states reflect the state's laws on the keeping of wild animals. Under § 26-40a, no person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal, which includes wildlife such as the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, bobcat, wolf, coyote, all species of bears, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan. The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such potentially dangerous animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, relocation or disposal of such animal. Additionally, any person who violates any provision of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $2000, and is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Under § 26-55, no person shall import or introduce into the state, possess or let loose, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit. Again, a violator is responsible for expenses from the seizure, maintenance, and relocation of the illegally imported animal. The penalty includes a civil fine up to $1000 and results in a class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Friends of Blackwater v. Salazar | 691 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2012) | 2012 WL 3538236 (D.C. Cir. 2012) |
In 1985, after scientists had found only 10 living squirrels, the Virginia northern flying squirrel was listed as endangered under the ESA. In 2006, after scientists had captured 1,063 squirrels, the FWS went through the procedure to delist the squirrel. Friends of Blackwater filed a complaint against the Secretary of Interior in district court, challenging the Secretary's rule to delist the squirrel. Subsequently, the Secretary of Interior appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The D.C. circuit court of appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the Secretary's determination the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel was no longer endangered was neither arbitrary and capricious nor in violation of the Act. |
Case | |
| NV - Rabies - 441A.435. Owner required to maintain dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated | NV ADC 441A.435 | Nev. Admin. Code 441A.435 | This Nevada regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat or ferret shall maintain the dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated against rabies in accordance with the provisions of this section and the recommendations set forth in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2008 edition, published by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. A licensed veterinarian may exempt a dog, cat or ferret from vaccination for health reasons. | Administrative | |
| VA - Restaurant - § 3.2-5115. Animals | VA Code Ann. § 3.2-5115 | VA ST § 3.2-5115 | This Virginia law states that no animal shall be permitted in any area used for the manufacture or storage of food products. However, a dog may be allowed in designated areas of a distillery, winery, or brewery as defined in the law. | Statute | |
| KS - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | K. S. A. § 47-645 - 646a; 47-835; 47-1701 - 1737; 79-1301; 32-954; 29-409 | KS ST § 47-645 - 646a; 47-835; 47-1701 - 1737; 79-1301; 32-954; 29-409 | These Kansas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing of dogs, specific laws that outline the care of dogs in kennel situations, and laws pertaining to dogs who endanger livestock. | Statute | |
| GA - Exotic Animals - 40-13-2-.16. Exotic and Pet Birds. | GA ADC 40-13-2-.16, 17 | Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 40-13-2-.16, 17 | This Georgia regulation provides that all exotic animals and all non-traditional livestock entering Georgia must be accompanied by an official Certificate of Veterinary Inspection identifying each animal with unique permanent individual identification. | Administrative |