Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN RE: PET PARADISE, INC. | 51 Agric. Dec. 1047 (1992) | 1992 WL 240852 (U.S.D.A.) | Where complaint advised respondent of exact matters at issue, there is no basis for dismissing any allegations of complaint merely because they failed to specify subsections of regulations or standards involved in some of alleged violations. Formalities of court pleading are not applicable in administrative proceedings. Findings of fact need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A violation is willful if the person intentionally does an act which is prohibited or acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements. | Case |
| Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez | 488 F.3d 1020 (C.A.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 1574607 (C.A.D.C.) |
This federal appeal concerns regulations issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2004 for leatherback sea turtles. The leatherbacks experience mortality due to long-line fishing in the pelagic ocean after they become entangled or hooked on the lines. In 2001, the Service issued an RFA - reasonable and prudent alternative - to long-line fishing operations in the pelagic ocean off the coast of New Jersey where operators could replace the industry-wide standard J-hook with circle hooks which would reduce mortality. Oceana claim is that the Fisheries Service acted arbitrarily when it predicted that the measures it was putting in place would result in a 13.1 percent mortality rate by 2007 for leatherbacks caught in longlines. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the Service's judgment was not arbitrary or capricious when it predicted that fishing operators could achieve a 13.1 post-release mortality rate. |
Case |
| Night monkeys in a cage is soiled with feces | Slideshow Images | |||
| Colombia - Cruelty - Ley 1955 | Ley 1955 | “The National Development Plan for 2018-2022,” in article 324, instructs the national government to draft the national policy and guidelines for the protection and welfare of farm animals, stray animals, and animals subject to cruelty, among others. It instructs the government to define strategies, programs, and to propose laws for animal protection on issues such as responsible ownership, sterilization campaigns, the creation of welfare centers, rehabilitation and integral assistance to domestic and wild animals, the progressive substitution of vehicles of animal traction, and the strengthening of investigation and prosecution procedures for crimes against animals with the purpose of eradicating all forms of animal violence, cruelty, illegal traffic, and trade. | Statute | |
| ND - Initiatives - Constitutional Measure 1 (right to hunt) | Constitutional Measure 1 (2000) | This amendment would provide that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents' heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good. It passed in 2000 (77% of votes). | Statute | |
| DC - Wildlife Control - Chapter 22 Wildlife Protection | DC CODE § 8-2201 - 2212 | DC ST § 8-2201 to 8-2212 | The following D.C. statutes provide the legal requirements for wildlife control service providers, which are defined as operators of businesses which involve the charging of a fee for services in wildlife control. Specifically, these statutes provide provisions about capturing target animals and non-target animals, as well as indicating how often a wildlife control service providers must check their traps. | Statute |
| US - Companion Animals - Federal Pet Theft Prevention Act (§ 2158. Protection of pets. ) | 7 USC 2158 | This section of the AWA prohibits shelters from selling found pets within a period of five days to any random-source organization. The purpose of the Act is to prevent animals from being stolen and purchased from humane societies in order to use the animals for scientific testing or illegal purposes (such as fighting, etc.). | Statute | |
| Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 708 F.3d 1099 (C.A.9 (Wash.),2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2117, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2467, 2013 WL 673712 (C.A.9 (Wash.),2013) |
Several whalers brought suit against Paul Watson and the Sea Shepard Society—of Animal Planet fame—under the Alien Tort Statute for acts that amounted to piracy and that violated international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas. Though the district court denied the whalers a preliminary injunction and dismissed the whalers' piracy claim, the Ninth Circuit found in favor for the whalers. The case was reversed and instructed to be transferred to another district judge; Circuit Judge Smith dissented on the instruction to transfer. |
Case |
| Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles | 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) | 194 Cal.App.4th 1219 (2011); 2011 WL 1601919 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) |
Dog owners mounted a constitutional challenge to a Los Angeles municipal ordinance that required all dogs and cats within the city to be sterilized. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance did not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, free speech rights. or equal protection rights. The court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague, was not outside of the city's police powers, did not vest unfettered discretion in city officials, did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint or an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the law did not violate individual liberties under the California Constitution. |
Case |
| Commonwealth v. Deible | 300 A.3d 1025 (2023) | 2023 PA Super 129, 2023 WL 4715187 (July 25, 2023) | This case is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of animal cruelty for failure to groom her terrier dog. Appellant has owned the 17-year-old terrier dog since the dog was a puppy. At one point, the dog escaped from appellant’s home and was found by a bystander. This bystander testified that the dog’s fur was heavily matted, with objects stuck in its fur. The bystander took pictures of the dog and contacted a veterinary clinic to shave the dog. The dog was then left at an animal shelter, where a humane police officer examined the dog and found it matted so heavily it could not see, stand, or defecate properly. Appellant testified that the dog was aggressive when she attempted to groom him, and that the dog made itself dirty when it escaped appellant’s home. Appellant also argued that their veterinarian was supposed to groom the dog, but the dog’s veterinary records did not support this. The lower court found that there was sufficient evidence to charge appellant with animal cruelty, and ordered her to pay fines totaling $946.58 and forfeit ownership of the dog. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence used to support her conviction of animal cruelty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the cruelty charge, as the statute prohibits “ill-treatment” and the evidence of the condition of the dog supports that it was treated improperly. Appellant also argues that the court’s order for her to forfeit her dog was improper, but the court of appeals disagreed due to the pattern of neglect established by appellant’s history with the dog. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the holding of the lower court. | Case |