Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Domestic Violence - Chapter 15. Domestic Abuse | ACA §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | AR ST §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | Upon a finding of domestic abuse, a court may "[d]irect the care, custody, or control of any pet. owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party residing in the household" in an order for protection filed by a petitioner. Arkansas also defines emotional abuse to include harming a spouse's pet in its Spousal Safety Plan Act; emotional abuse, if committed by a spouse against their spouse, also constitutes spousal abuse. | Statute | |
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 623 F.3d 19 (C.A.1 (Me.), 2010). | 2010 WL 4104633 (C.A.1 (Me.)). |
Animal welfare organizations sued the State of Maine under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop the authorization of trapping activity that affected Canada lynx. The Court of Appeals held that such organizations had standing to sue, but that the District Court did not err in its refusal to grant a permanent injunction banning foothold traps or other relief. |
Case | |
| Fitch v. Eiseman | 2000 WL 34545801 (Alaska 2000) (unpublished opinion) | The trial court approved a divorcing couple’s agreement for dogs to be with their children (and so travel to the husband's and wife’s houses as part of a shared custody agreement of their children). The wife did not abide by the agreement, so the Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court to determine sole ownership of the dog. | Case | ||
| Paquito, the parrot, 2004- get decision | This is the case of Paquito, a parrot that found himself in the middle of a controversy when a divorced couple began a fight for his custody. In this occasion, the ex-husband José Luis Aparicio lived the Paquito, who had been separated from his companion, another parrot that was kept by Carina Navarro (ex-wife) and that died soon after the separation, apparently from sadness. The took Paquito without the husband’s authorization, arguing that the husband mistreated Paquito and her daughter missed him and wanted to live with him. The ex-husband filed a complaint arguing aggravated larceny. The defendant is found not guilty. However, the judge ordered the defendant return Paquito to the plaintiff. In an unprecedented move, the criminal judge established a communication and visitation regimen, recognizing Paquito was also affected by these decisions. | Case | |||
| Wild Horse Observers Association, Inc. v. New Mexico Livestock Board | 519 P.3d 74 (N.M.App., 2022) | 2022-NMCA-061, 2022 WL 2901248 (N.M.App., 2022) | This appeal examines the protection afforded to New Mexico's free-roaming horses under NMSA 1978, Section 77-18-5 (2007). The New Mexico Livestock Board (the Board) appeals from a district court order granting declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Wild Horse Observers Association, Inc. (WHOA). WHOA brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Board and others regarding the status of horses corralled by a private citizen on private property. The citizen had initially complained to the Board about the free-roaming horses on her property and was told that the Board only takes possession of horses corralled by citizens. The citizen did so and the Board took possession of the herd, where it then posted on its website that the horses would be sold at auction. WHOA filed the instant emergency action, stating that the Board exceeded its authority and unlawfully treated the subject horses as estray livestock. The group sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the Board from impounding or selling the subject horses. The district court granted WHOA's request for a TRO, thereby prohibiting the Board from taking any action with the horses. After a bench trial on the merits, the district court determined that the Board's actions to take possession and sell the subject horses were contrary to the Board's statutory authority, enjoined the Board from “further unlawful possession and selling” of the subject horses, and awarded WHOA costs and attorney fees. The Board appeals here, arguing that the horses were captured on private, rather than public land, and the district court erred in concluding them to be “wild horses." The Board also contends that the district court made findings of fact that are unsupported by substantial evidence, issued a vague injunction, erred in awarding attorney fees, and erred in refusing to impose an injunction bond upon WHOA. This court found no error with the lower court concluding that the horses should be protected as “wild horses” because the definition of that term does not depend on whether, at the moment of their capture, the horses were on land that is private, but instead depends on whether the horses generally roam public land. Therefore, the horses were not estrays. As to whether the Board should have conducted its statutory duties with respect to horses including history and DNA testing, this court held that duty does not extend testing of a wild horse if it is captured on private land. Thus, the district court erred in determining that the Board failed to follow its statutory duties under Section 77-18-5(B). In fact, the Board has no authority to test the conformation, history, and DNA of such horses found on private land any more than it does to take possession of and remove the wild horses from those lands. The court also found the injunction was not vague or impracticable and that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order an injunction bond. Ultimately, this court affirmed the district court's order to the extent that it correctly determined that the subject horses are wild horse rather than estray, but reversed the district court's determination that the Board should have acted according to its statutory duties under Section 77-18-5. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and further consideration of attorney fees. | Case | |
| LA - Disaster Planning - State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan | State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan | Louisiana's Emergency Operations Plan addresses pets and service animals in several places. The parish office of homeland security and emergency preparedness must make an EOP that includes plans for animal sheltering: "The EOP must include planning for the humane evacuation, transport, and temporary sheltering of service animals and household pets in times of emergency or disaster. In preparing and revising the plan, the parish office of homeland security and emergency preparedness should embrace the “Whole Community” concept and seek the advice and assistance of government, business, labor, industry, agriculture, civic, and volunteer organizations." | Administrative | ||
| New York Revised Statutes 1867: Chapter 375: Sections 1-10 | N.Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 375, §§ 1-10 (1867) | Chapter 375, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of animal cruelty," concerns New York's law on animal treatment for 1867. | Statute | ||
| CO - Endangered Species - Article 2. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation | C. R. S. A. § 33-2-101 - 108 | CO ST § 33-2-101 to 108 | These Colorado statutes provide the State's intent to protect endangered, threatened, or rare species and defines the terms associated with the statute. It also has a provision specific to the reintroduction of the bonytail and black-footed ferret. Under the management program, Colorado law provides for the acquisition of habitat for species listed as well as other protective measures. | Statute | |
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final Rule | Federal Register: July 12, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 133) | RIN 1018-AC48 |
The Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle remains classified as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington where it is currently listed as threatened. The special rule for threatened bald eagles is revised to include all lower 48 States. This action will not alter those conservation measures already in force to protect the species and its habitats. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada, where it is not at risk and is not protected under the Act. Bald eagles of Mexico are not listed at this time due to a recently enacted moratorium on listing additional taxa as threatened or endangered. |
Administrative | |
| Malawi National Parks and Wildlife Act | No 11 of 1992 |
This law represented a major redraft of the old British game law. It protects endangered species and parks. It also sets out the general game law. Notably it also requires the use of environmental impact statements. |
Statute |