Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. | 677 F.Supp.2d 55, 2009 WL 5159752 (D.D.C., 2009) |
This opinion represents the nine-year culmination of litigation brought by plaintiff Tom Rider and Animal Protection Institute (API) against Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) - the operator of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey traveling circus. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's use of bullhooks and prolonged periods of chaining with respect to its circus elephants violates the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. This Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Since the Court concluded that plaintiffs lack standing, it did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' allegations that FEI “takes” its elephants in violation of Section 9 of the ESA. |
Case | |
| Mexico - Health - Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal | Federal Law of Animal Health | The Federal Law of Animal Health establishes the foundation for diagnosing, preventing, controlling, and eradicating zoonotic diseases. It defines animal welfare and outlines best practices related to livestock, among other things. This law defines animal welfare as the set of activities aimed at providing animals comfort, tranquility, protection, and safety during rearing, maintenance, exploitation, transport, and slaughter. | Statute | |
| CITES - Non-Detriment Findings Checklist for CITES |
Quick summary of document to aid CITES Scientific Authorities in make a decision about whether a export of an appendix II species is acceptable by being non-detrimental. |
Treaty | ||
| New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 2012 | This code sets the minimum standards for the care and management of layer hens under all forms of management used in New Zealand. The purpose of this code is to provide guidance to the owners of layer hens and to persons who are in charge of them about the standards they must achieve in order to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. | Statute | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act Decisions |
This document contains references to both court decisions and administrative proceedings under the Animal Welfare Act on a section by section basis. |
Statute | ||
| Forest Guardians v. Veneman | 392 F.Supp.2d 1082 (D.Ariz.,2005) |
District Court held that United States Forest Service could issue permits that allow cattle on lands near waterways where spikedace and loach minnows live, both species are listed as "threatened" species, even though this grazing could delay their recovery. |
Case | |
| DICKERSON v. BRITTINGHAM. | 86 A. 106 (Del.Super. 1913) | 4 Boyce 93, 27 Del. 93 (1913) |
In this Delaware case, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's horse, alleged to have been caused by the negligent driving by the defendant of his team. This resulted in a head-on collision, which caused the death of the horse days after. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the court held that if the jury believed from the evidence presented that the defendant was driving without ordinary care, the verdict should stand for the plaintiff. |
Case |
| MT - Dog - Dogs Act | Act XXI of 1985, Amended by VII of 1990 |
The Dogs Act was originally enacted in 1985. It provides that a person keeping a dog over the age of six months must obtain a licence for the dog. If a person does not have a licence for the dog, he or she shall be guilty of a criminal offence and will be liable to the punishment of a fine ( ammenda ) of five liri. |
Statute | |
| Dunham v. Kootenai County | 690 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.Idaho, 2010) | 2010 WL 556803 (D.Idaho) |
This matter involves the Defendant Kootenai County's motion for summary judgment this federal civil rights case filed by Dunham. The facts underlying the case stem from 2008, when county animal control officers went to Dunham's residence to investigate complaints of possible animal cruelty. During their investigation, Defendants entered Dunham's property to ascertain the condition of the horses residing there in a round-pen. Despite the conditions of the horses which necessitated their removal and relocation to an equine rescue facility, Dunham was ultimately charged and found not guilty of charges of animal cruelty. Dunham claims that Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her property and seized her horses without a warrant. Defendants counter that the search was constitutional based on the open fields doctrine, and that the seizure was constitutional based on the plain view doctrine. Based on the open fields doctrine, the Court concluded that Dunham did not have an expectation of privacy in the searched area. |
Case |
| Juelfs v. Gough | 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002) | In this case, the husband and wife had agreed to shared ownership of their dog, which the lower court incorporated into its order.Based on danger the dog faced by other dogs in the wife’s home and increased contention between the parties, the lower court next gave the husband custody with an order for the wife’s visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband. The state’s Supreme Court affirmed the modified order. | Case |