Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright v. Fish and Game Commission (unpublished) | 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8091 | 2003 WL 22007258 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
The California Court of Appeal upheld the state's Fish and Game Commission’s ferret ban against an equal protection challenge from a ferret owner. The owner argued that the ban discriminated between ferret owners and owners of other companion animals. However, the court found a rational relation between the ban and concerns about wildlife and human health (from attacks and from rabies). |
Case |
| Art and Antique Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Seggos | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2019 WL 3817305 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2019) | The plaintiffs are trade organizations representing arts and antique dealers. Plaintiff’s members have an “economic and professional interest in. . .the purchase, sale, distribution or trading of antique elephant ivory.” The Defendant is the Commissioner of DEC which is a state agency tasked with protecting New York’s natural resources and environment. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the import and export of endangered species and the sale, offering for sale, or movement of endangered species in interstate or foreign commerce. The prohibitions, however, had exceptions for “antique articles” that are 100 years of age or older. Those wishing to import such antique articles needed to first obtain a federal permit. Under the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, trade of African elephant ivory is generally prohibited. Only certain items containing a de minimus quantity of ivory are exempt. The state of New York imposed a ban on elephant ivory with even narrower exceptions than the ESA. The DEC only issued licenses authorizing trade in ivory pursuant to the State Ivory Law’s exceptions. The licenses actually issued by the DEC restricted the advertisement and display of ivory products. Plaintiff’s filed this action challenging the constitutionality of the State Ivory Law on preemption and First Amendment grounds. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Defendants and Intervenors crossed-moved to dismiss. The Court examined the ESA and determined that section 1535(f) did not preempt the State Ivory Law because the ESA prohibitions only applied to interstate or foreign commerce while the State Ivory Law applied to intrastate commerce. As result, the exceptions contained in the State Ivory Law did not prohibit what was authorized by the ESA. The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on Count I because it was not “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress to preempt state laws restricting purely intrastate commerce in ivory.” The Plaintiff’s second count alleged that the State Ivory Law’s permit requirement violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The display restriction in the license prohibited the physical display for sale of any item not authorized for intrastate sale under the State Ivory Law even if the merchant was authorized under the ESA to sell the item in interstate commerce. The Court determined that the in-store display of ivory products constituted commercial speech because the display constituted lawful activity, New York had a substantial interest in regulating the sale of ivory within its borders and the display restriction directly advanced that interest. The Court was unable to determine whether the display restriction burdened substantially more speech than was necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests. Ultimately the Court granted the Defendant’s and Intervenor’s cross-motions to dismiss with respect to preemption and denied both the Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment with respect to the First Amendment Claim. | Case | |
| NJ - Education - 18A:35-4.25. Right of pupil to refuse participation in dissection activities | N.J.S.A. 18A:35-4.25 | This New Jersey law allows a public school pupil from kindergarten through grade 12 to refuse to dissect, vivisect, incubate, capture or otherwise harm or destroy animals or any parts thereof as part of a course of instruction. The school must notify pupils and parents at the beginning of each school on the right to decline participation. Any pupil who chooses to refrain from participation in or observation shall be offered an alternative education project for the purpose of providing the pupil with the factual knowledge, information or experience required by the course of study. A pupil shall not be discriminated against, in grading or in any other manner, based upon a decision to exercise the rights of this act. | Statute | |
| VA - Domestic Violence - Protective orders | Va. Code Ann.§§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, and 19.2-152.10 | VA ST §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, and 19.2-152.10 | In 2014, Virginia amended its Protective Order laws to grant petitioners possession of any “companion animal," so long as the petitioner is considered the owner. Companion animals include any family pets, such as dogs, cats, hamsters, etc., but do not include farm animals. To be considered an owner, a petitioner must either have a property interest in the animal, keep or house the animal, have the animal in their care, or have acted as a custodian of the animal. This new provision is now included in Virginia's Emergency Protective Orders, Preliminary Protective Orders, and Protective Orders. | Statute |
| VA - Fighting - § 3.2-6571. Animal fighting; penalty | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6571 | VA ST § 3.2-6571 | This section makes it unlawful to knowingly promote, prepare, engage in or attend an exhibition of the fighting of animals. The violation becomes a Class 6 felony if: 1) one of the animals is a dog; 2) a device or substance is used to enhance the dog's ability to fight; 3) money or something else of value is wagered; 4) admission is paid; 5) an animal is owned or possessed with the intent to engage in an animal fight; or 6) a person causes a minor to attend or undertake in the activities. An animal used in fighting may be confiscated by law enforcement. Additionally, any person convicted of violating any listed provision shall be prohibited by the court from possession or ownership of companion animals or cocks. | Statute |
| KS - Ulysses - Breed - ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS | ULYSSES, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-301 - 2-302 |
In Ulysses, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions. Pit bull dogs registered with the city as of July 19, 1989 may be kept subject to certain requirements, such as use of a leash and muzzle if outside, confinement, “Beware of Dog” signs, $50,000 insurance, and identification photographs. It is prohibited to sell or give a pit bull away except in limited circumstances. All pit bull puppies born in the city must be removed within six weeks of birth. Failure to comply may result in seizure of the dog, a fine of $200 to $1,000, and imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company | 80 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. 2004) | 2004 WL 1207668 (Wis.), 272 Wis.2d 46 |
Dog bite victim sued homeowners insurer. Held: courts may factor traditional public policy to bar a claim under the dog bite statute, and in this case, public policy precludes imposing liability on homeowners even though the dog bite statute appears to impose strict liability. |
Case |
| Kanoa Inc., v. Clinton | 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (1998) |
Plaintiff cruise company filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt scientific research of the defendant government, alleging standing under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"), and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). |
Case | |
| England/Wales - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 | 2019 c.15 | This Act amends the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 (England and Wales). It makes it an offence to be cause unnecessary suffering to a service animal whilst in service, removing the defence to human safety from the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Also known as 'Finn's Law.' | Statute | |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Sales, live animal - The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 | 1990 No. 2628 | Rules covering the treatment of animals in markets, which make it an offence to cause or permit any injury or unnecessary suffering to an animal at a market. The Order also sets out specific arrangements in respect of penning, food and water and the care of young animals. | Statute |