Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Wildlife - Article 6. Law Enforcement and Penalties--Wildlife. | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-101 to 142 | CO ST § 33-6-101 to 142 | These Colorado statutes represent Part 1 of the state's wildlife code. Among the provisions include violations for improperly taking wildlife, hunting provisions, and a law prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting. | Statute | |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir., 2015) | 2015 WL 4727327 (D.C. Cir., 2015) | Ten years after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) took steps to apply Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protections to birds, the task remained incomplete. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued the USDA, arguing that its inaction amounted to agency action “unlawfully withheld,” in violation of section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court granted the USDA's motion to dismiss, concluding that the USDA's enforcement decisions were committed by law to its discretion. On appeal, the court found PETA had standing, but had failed to plausibly allege that the USDA's decade-long inaction constituted agency action “unlawfully withheld” in violation of the APA. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, therefore affirmed the District Court's judgment of dismissal. For the District Court's opinion, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 60 F.Supp.3d 14 (D.D.C. 2014). | Case | |
| Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y | 2014 WL 3579639 (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2014) | After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion. | Case | ||
| GA - Fur - Article 2. Trapping, Trappers, and Fur Dealers | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-60 to 73 | GA ST § 27-3-60 to 73 | Under these GA statutes, trappers and fur-dealers must be licensed. Trapping of fur-bearing animals is allowed during open trapping season. Traps must be inspected at least once every 24 hours. Trappers must dispatch fur-bearing animals caught in a trap and release domestic animals. It is legal to set traps to protect livestock and domestic animals from predators, but unlawful to trap upon the right of way of any public road or upon another's land. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| R. v. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Tesco Stores Ltd. | CO/467/93 |
Although a local authority may not adopt a policy of not enforcing certain laws or not enforcing them against certain types of parties, it may nevertheless make rational choices with respect to the use of its enforcement powers in order to deploy its limited resources in the most efficient and effective manner. |
Case | ||
| US - Air travel, service animals - Guidance Concerning the Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United Kingdom | 2007 WL 555627 (F.R.) | FR Doc. E7-3195 |
This notice publishes guidance concerning the carriage of service animals in air transportation from the United States (U.S.) to the United Kingdom (U.K.). These guidelines address the differences between U.K. laws regulating the transport of service animals on flights into the U.K. and U.S. law with respect to the carriage of service animals in air transportation. U.K. laws affecting the transport of service animals in air travel differ significantly from the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulation in 14 CFR Part 382, resulting in uncertainty for carriers and persons with disabilities about the requirements that apply on flights into or transiting the U.K.
|
Administrative | |
| CA - Birds - Part 2. Birds. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3500 - 3864 | CA FISH & G § 3500 - 3864 | These various sections are all related to the protection of birds in California. Within these sections, the Legislature has enumerated fully protected birds in the state, prohibited activities such as destroying bird nests and eggs, required licenses for duck hunting, and outlined several provisions to guide state efforts in preserving and rehabilitating the California Condor. | Statute | |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board | 891 F.Supp.2d 1212 (D.Kan. 2012) | 2012 WL 3834740 (D.Kan. 2012) |
Upon being informed by the Kansas State Fair Board (KSFB) that it must shield a video depicting graphic images of animals being slaughtered, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sought a preliminary injunction in order to show the video at the Kansas State Fair. PETA argued the shield was unconstitutional. The KSFB sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, that PETA lacked Article Three Standing, and that the defendant was not a section 1983 person. Both motions were denied by the district court. |
Case | |
| Lyman v. Lanser | --- N.E.3d ----, 2024 WL 970217 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2024) | 103 Mass. App. Ct. 787 (2024) | This case is an appeal concerning an agreement to share possession of a dog between a couple that had ended their relationship. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals vacated the order, then this appeal followed. The parties purchased the dog together while they were still a couple, and agreed to share the dog if they broke up. After the relationship eventually ended, the couple shared the dog on a two week alternating basis. Eventually, one party maintained custody of the dog and denied the other party access to the dog, so plaintiff filed this action for conversion and breach of contract, seeking specific performance of the custody agreement for the dog. The court here found that the dog is jointly owned property, the lack of a written contract does not bar the plaintiff from specific performance, and that the judge's order of specific performance was a suitable remedy since monetary damages would not allow plaintiff access to his shared property. Therefore, the court reversed the order vacating the preliminary injunction and denied the defendant's petition for relief from the preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| Sentencia C-467/16 | Sentencia C-467/16 | This lawsuit seeks the unconstitutionality of articles 665 and 658 of the Civil Code that define "movable objects" and "real property by destination." The plaintiff alleges that these categorizations are against the Constitution's environmental orientation and international agreements. The court upheld the validity of these articles and stated that such categorizations were not against legally considering animals as sentient beings deserving of protection against pain and suffering. In other words, the protection of animals is not affected by this language. "Animals are included in the category of property because property rights may be exercised over them, and animals are often the subjects of legal transactions. Therefore, categorizing animals as property responds to a necessity and does not affect the regulation in other provisions to develop the duty to protect animals as sentient beings (Law 1774, 2016)." | Case |