Results
Displaying 51 - 60 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Horse Protection Ass'n v. U. S. Dept. of Interior | 551 F.2d 342 (C.A.D.C. 1977) |
Appellants (American Horse Protection Association and a member of the joint advisory board created under the Act) initiated an action in the District Court against the Dept. of the Interior, alleging violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and other federal statutes in connection with a roundup of horses on federal lands. In January and February of 1973, there was a roundup of horses (said by appellants to be wild and free-roaming) on public lands near Howe, Idaho. The District Court for the District of Columbia, granted summary judgment for appellees, rejecting appellants' contention that the Brand Inspector lacked authority under the Act to determine ownership conclusively. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the District Court's construction of Section 5 unacceptable. This Court did not believe that Congress intended to abdicate to state officials final determinations under Section 5 on ownership of wild free-roaming horses and burros on federal lands. Thus, the Court held that final role is reserved to the Federal Government. The judgment appealed from was reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court.
|
Case | |
| MN - Dangerous - Minnesota Dangerous Dog Definitions, Dog Bites, & Rabies Treatments | M. S. A. § 35.67 - 35.69; M.S.A. § 346.51; M.S.A. § 347.50 | MN ST § 35.67 - 35.69; MN ST § 346.51; MN ST § 347.50 | This Minnesota set of laws outlines the procedure for a town establishing a rabies proclamation and prevents the running at large of unmuzzled dogs in such localities. It also provides that an owner or custodian of a dog which does not have an appropriate antirabies vaccination and which bites or otherwise exposes a person to rabies virus may be penalized under section 346.53.& The statute also defines "dangerous dog" and "potentially dangerous dog." | Statute |
| HI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 711) | H R S § 711-1100 to 1110.5 | HI ST § 711-1100 to 1110.5 | Under this set of Hawaii laws, a person commits the misdemeanor offense of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, cruelly beats or starves any animal, deprives a pet animal of necessary sustenance, mutilates, poisons, or kills without need any animal other than insects, vermin, or other pests, or engages in animal fighting enterprises. Dog fighting constitutes a felony where the person owns or trains the dog to fight. The section has enhanced penalties for cruelty to guide or service animals or interference with their duties. | Statute |
| environmental authorities operation to confiscate night monkeys from malaria labs | Slideshow Images | |||
| TX - Dogs, rescue - Chapter 785. Search and Rescue Dogs | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 785.001 - .005 | Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 785.001 - .005 | This chapter of laws deals with search and rescue dogs and their handlers. All search and rescue dog handlers must be certified by the National Association for Search and Rescue or another state or nationally recognized search and rescue agency. This chapter of laws allows for search and rescue dogs and their handlers equal access to all public facilities. If any person denies access to a search and rescue dog or their handler, he or she will be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $300 or more than $1,000. If the search and rescue dog causes any damage while in the facility, the handler will be solely responsible. | Statute |
| Banks v. Adair | 251 S.E.2d 88 (Ga.App., 1978) | 148 Ga.App. 254 (Ga.App., 1978) |
In this Georgia dog bite case, plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the verdict was properly directed for defendant where there was no evidence that established the defendant's knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite or injure humans.
|
Case |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, | 234 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), review filed (Apr. 16, 2015) | 2015 WL 1004423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) | Plaintiff and respondent Animal Legal Defense Fund filed an action against defendants and appellants LT Napa Partners LLC and Kenneth Frank for unfair competition, alleging defendants sold foie gras in their Napa restaurant in violation of California law. Defendants moved to strike plaintiff's claim pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing it was exercising its free speech rights by protesting the law. Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of the motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision because the ALDF demonstrated probability of prevailing on the claim that it had standing under Unfair Competition Law (UCL); showed basis for liability against chef; and showed probability of prevailing on its claim that owner and chef unlawfully sold foie gras. | Case |
| Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 275 F.3d 432 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001) | 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445 (2001) |
The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria. |
Case |
| MA - Hunting - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 5C | MA ST 131 § 5C | This law reflects Massachusetts' hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. Acts prohibited include, but are not limited to, driving or disturbing wildlife, harassing another engaged in lawful taking of fish or wildlife, interjecting oneself into the line of fire, or erecting barriers to prevent access. A person may seek an injunction to prevent violation of this section and a person who sustains damages from any act in violation of the law may bring a civil action for punitive damages. | Statute |
| US - Conservation - Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act | 16 USC 2901 - 2912 | The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, approved September 29, 1980, authorizes financial and technical assistance to the States for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The original Act authorized $5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1982 through 1985, for grants for development and implementation of comprehensive State nongame fish and wildlife plans and for administration of the Act. It also required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study potential mechanisms for funding these activities and report to Congress by March 1984. | Statute |