Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McNeely v. U.S. | 874 A.2d 371 (D.C. App. 2005) | Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act. On appeal, t he Court of Appeals, held that the Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions. | Case | ||
| Ley Ambiental de Protección a la Tierra en la Ciudad De México | Ley Ambiental de Protección a la Tierra | This law aims to achieve several objectives, including the preservation and restoration of ecological balance, the prevention of environmental harm, and the promotion of sustainable development. This sustainable development approach is intended to foster economic advantages and support various social activities. Article 2.V establishes that one of the cases in which this law would be applied In the conservation, protection, and preservation of flora and fauna under the jurisdiction of the Federal District. In addition, Article 4.IV deems the prevention and control of environmental pollution in the air, water, and soil, along with the protection, restoration, and responsible utilization of vital natural elements and habitats essential for preserving and promoting biodiversity, as matters of public utility. | Statute | ||
| NH - Ecoterrorism - 644:8-e Willful Interference With Organizations or Projects Involving Animals | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8-e | NH ST § 644:8-e | This law is New Hampshire's eco/agroterrorism law. The law states that whoever willfully causes bodily injury or willfully interferes with any property, including animals or records, used by any organization or project involving animals, or with any animal facility shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Whoever in the course of a violation of paragraph I causes serious bodily injury to another individual or economic loss in excess of $10,000 shall be guilty of a class B felony. | Statute | |
| VA - Initiatives - Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game | Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game (passed) | This Virginia ballot measure passed in 2000 provided by constitutional amendment that, "The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." It passed with 60% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| MO - Ferguson - Breed - Sec. 6-21. Regulation of pit bull dogs. | FERGUSON, MO., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 6-21 |
In Ferguson, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date of the ordinance. Such dogs must be registered and properly confined, or else kept on a leash and a muzzle. Owners must post "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" signs, keep liability insurance, and photographs for identification purposes. Violations may result in fines and imprisonment, as well as the seizure and impoundment of the dog. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| WV - Disaster planning - Emergency Support Function 11 | Emergency Support Function 11 | This excerpt of West Virginia's Emergency Operations Plan contains Emergency Support Function 11, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Within ESF 11, there is a brief mention of household pets. | Administrative | ||
| US - Livestock - Ante-Mortem Inspection of Disabled Animals and Other Animals Unable to Move on | 1990 WL 346631 (F.R.) | RIN 0583-AA98 |
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to allow ante-mortem inspection of disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, while the animals are still on a transport vehicle, if requested by the official establishment. Currently, the ante-mortem inspection of such animals may only be performed in designated, covered ante-mortem pens on the premises of an official establishment. This proposal is intended to reduce the inhumane handling that may result when disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, are transferred from transport vehicles to the designated, covered ante-mortem pens for ante-mortem inspection. |
Administrative | |
| WA - Gold Bar - § Sec. 6.02.019 Foster care or rescue or placement. | § 6.02.019 | This municipal code provides the provisions for foster care or rescue placement program for dogs and cats. The code requires the shelter to maintain records. The code also limits the length of fostering and the number of dogs and cats that an individual may foster at one time. | Local Ordinance | ||
| Carl v. Resnick | 714 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1999) |
In this Illinois case, plaintiff Judy Carl was riding her horse on a trail in the Cook County Forest Preserve when the horse upon which defendant was riding pinned its ears back, turned its body toward plaintiff's horse, and kicked plaintiff and her horse. One hoof struck plaintiff's leg, causing her injury. In interpreting the state's Equine Act, the court observed that plaintiff's complaint against defendant was not barred by the Equine Act unless plaintiff's recreational riding of her own horse on a public trail was one of the limited activities sought to be encouraged by the Act. After determining that there was no conflict between the Illinois EALA and Animal Control Act, the court reversed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment for plaintiff on Count I as to liability under the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/16 (West 1995)).
|
Case | ||
| UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Young | 380 F.Supp.2d 1166 (2005, D.Hawai'i) | 2005 WL 1907675 (D.Hawai'i) |
Some parasail operators brought an action against state officials challenging validity of a state law that banned parasailing in navigable waters. Defendants argued that the court's order should be reconsidered in light of an intervening change in federal law that they say allows for the seasonal parasailing ban. After vacation of summary judgment in favor of operators, 2005 WL 1910497, the state moved for relieve from final judgment. The District Court held that the federal law permitting Hawaii to enforce state laws regulating recreational vessels for purpose of conserving and managing humpback whales did not violate separation of powers doctrine, and federal law did not violate Equal Protection Clause. |
Case |