Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service | 409 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y.2006) |
The Natural Resources Defense Council sought material from the National Marine Fisheries Service about an incident of mass stranding of whales under the Freedom of Information Act because the Council thought it had to do with navy sonar use. The Service did not want to release the materials, saying they were protected from disclosure because they were discussions of agency decision-making. The court required disclosure of most of the materials because purely factual matters are not protected from disclosure. |
Case | ||
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations | FR Doc. 04-24008 (2004) |
NMFS proposes regulations to implement resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and by the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). These regulations would prohibit activities that undermine the effective implementation and enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), and International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). This proposed rule would enlarge the class of vessels required to pay observer fees. The procedure to categorize tuna purse seine vessels as ``active'' in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) and the deadline for submitting vessel permit applications would change. Procedures are proposed for managing the capacity of the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating in the ETP through maintenance of a Vessel Register, the definitive list of vessels authorized to purse seine for tuna in the ETP. This proposed rule is intended to contribute to the long-term conservation of dolphin and tuna stocks and to ensure that the domestic tuna tracking and verification program remains consistent with international standards. |
Administrative | ||
| Mogensen v. Welch | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2023) | 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D.Va., 2023) | Plaintiffs owned and operated a zoo containing about 95 animals. Following complaints about suspected abuse and neglect of these animals, defendant executed a search warrant of the zoo. The search led to the seizure of many of these animals, including a tiger in such poor health that it needed to be euthanized. Following the seizure of these animals, plaintiffs filed a motion to argue that their due process rights were violated because a civil forfeiture hearing must be held no more than ten business days after the state seized the animals, and plaintiffs argue that ten days is too little time to prepare for the hearing. To succeed on the claim, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which they were unable to do because plaintiffs still have the right to appeal if the hearing does not go in their favor. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| IN - Trust - 30-4-2-18. Trust to provide for care of an animal alive during settlor's lifetime | I.C. 30-4-2-18 | IN ST 30-4-2-18 | Indiana's pet trust law was enacted in 2005. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or upon death of last surviving animal alive during settlor's lifetime. Property of a trust authorized by this section may be applied only to the trust's intended use, except to the extent the court determines that the value of the trust property exceeds the amount required for the trust's intended use. | Statute | |
| CO - Ordinances - Pet animal control and licensing | C. R. S. A. § 30-15-101 | CO ST § 30-15-101 | This Colorado statute states that the board of county commissioners of any county may adopt a resolution for the control and licensing of dogs. These regulations may require licensing of dogs by owners, require that dogs and other pet animals be under control at all times and define "control," define "vicious dog" and "vicious animal," establish a dog pound, or other animal holding facility, provide for the impoundment of animals which are vicious, not under control, or otherwise not in conformity with the resolutions, and establish such other reasonable regulations and restrictions for the control of dogs and other pet animals. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Lee | 937 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1991) |
Fishermen who took part in importing salmon that they knew or should have known had been taken in violation of Taiwanese regulation, could be subjected to criminal penalties for violation of the Lacey Act, despite the fact not all fishermen who were involved actually violated the Taiwanese regulation. The fishermen argue that the term "any foreign law" encompasses only foreign statutes, not foreign regulations; however, the court previously ruled that a Taiwanese regulation prohibiting the export of salmon without a permit constituted a "foreign law" under section 3372(a)(2)(A) and thereby supported an Act violation. |
Case | ||
| American Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. | 659 F.3d 13 (C.A.D.C., 2011) | 2011 WL 5108581 (C.A.D.C.) |
The Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, affirmed the lower court's finding that plaintiffs lack standing to sue Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus for violation of the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the use of two training methods for controlling elephants, bullhooks and chaining, constitute a "taking" under the Act. Here, the court found no clear error by the district court as to former employee Tom Rider's standing to sue where Rider's testimony did not prove an injury-in-fact. As to API's standing, the court held that API did not meet either informational standing or standing under a Havens test. |
Case | |
| Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Romeo and Salvador, two beloved family dogs that found themselves in the center of a heartbreaking divorce. The divorce resulted in the family judge ordering the foreclosure of the dogs in the divorce proceeding. The plaintiff filed a writ of protection or "Recurso de Tutela" before the Chamber of Civil Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice to protect her rights to family unity, free personality development, and health. Furthermore, she argued that the lower court decision had violated not just her rights but her children's rights, who had developed a filial bond with the dogs, as they are sentient beings and not just mere property. The Court denied the "tutela." It affirmed the lower court decision allowing foreclosure upon companion animals, holding that the "tutela" was not the appropriate legal mechanism to protect procedural guarantees. In his dissenting opinion, Magistrate Aroldo Wilson Quiróz stated that the court had missed a valuable opportunity to address the issue of the multispecies families in Colombia. This novel legal concept is supported under Art. 42 of the Constitution, and that it was the responsibility of the court, as the body of last instance, to delve into this subject, pointing out the fact that even though animals are considered property, they are also sentient beings in the eyes of the law with rights that limit the right to own them. Like in other family cases, the magistrate suggested that courts should address issues such as custody, visitation rights, and alimony payments when companion animals are involved. | Case | ||
| GA - Hunting - § 27-3-12. Use of drugs, poisons, chemicals, smoke, gas, explosives | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-12 | GA ST § 27-3-12 | This Georgia law prohibits computer assisted remote hunting or providing or operating a facility that allows others to engage in computer assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wildlife being hunted or shot is located in this state. The law also makes it unlawful to hunt hunt any wild animal, game animal, or game bird by means of drugs, poisons, chemicals, smoke, gas, explosives, recorded calls or sounds, or recorded and electronically imitated or amplified sounds or calls. Violation is a misdemeanor (high) with a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 and/or a term of imprisonment up to 12 months. | Statute | |
| CA - Marine - Chapter 10.5. Marine Life Protection Act. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2850 - 2863 | CA FISH & G § 2850 - 2863 | In this act, the California Legislature finds and declares a need to reexamine and redesign California's marine protected area systems to increase its effectiveness at protecting the state's marine life, habitat, and ecosystems. To improve the design and management of that system, the Marine Life Protection Program was adopted. A few of the Program's goals are to protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, to help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, and rebuild those that are depleted. | Statute |