Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center | 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 4919871 (D.D.C., 2016) | New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS. | Case | ||||||||
| Amos v. State | 478 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App. 2015), petition for discretionary review refused (Nov. 18, 2015) | 2015 WL 4043302 (Tex. App., 2015) | A jury found appellant guilty of the offense of cruelty to a nonlivestock animal after he beat a Shih Tzu to death with a broom. After finding an enhancement paragraph true, the jury assessed Appellant's punishment at thirty-one months’ confinement. Appellant asserted five issues on this appeal: (1) the admission of a State's witness's recorded statement to the police, which the court overruled because the evidence was received without objection; (2) the denial of his motion to quash the indictment for failing to allege an offense, which the court overruled because the indictment tracked the statutory language; (3) the denial of six of his challenges for cause, which the court overruled because the venire members gave the defense counsel contradictory answers meaning the trial court could not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse a juror; (4) the denial of his objection to the charge, which the court overruled because the jury charge tracked the statute’s language; and (5) the denial of his motion to suppress the dog’s necropsy, which the court overruled because the appellant had no intention of reclaiming the dog's body or her ashes and thereby relinquished his interest in them such that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy and lacked standing to contest the reasonableness of any search. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||||||||
| FL - Immunity, Care For Injured Animals - Chapter 768. Negligence | West's F. S. A. § 768.13 | FL ST § 768.13 | This section comprises Florida's Good Samaritan Act. Under the Act, any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously (without payment) and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. | Statute | ||||||||
| CA - Hunting - § 3513. Migratory nongame birds; protection | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3513 | CA FISH & G § 3513 | California law reiterates that it is illegal to take or possess any bird or its parts that is listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, of which the eagle is listed. | Statute | ||||||||
| Roose v. State of Indiana | 610 N.E.2d 256 (1993) |
Defendant was charged with criminal mischief and cruelty to an animal after dragging it with his car. The court concluded that, although some of the photos admitted were gruesome, the municipal court validly admitted the photos of the dog that defendant injured into evidence because the photos clearly aided the jury in understanding the nature of those injuries and the veterinarian's testimony as to the medical attention that the dog received. |
Case | |||||||||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | 450 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2006) | 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,102, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6933 |
The issue in this case is whether the Endangered Species Act requires the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to complete formal designation of critical habitat for an endangered fish species , the threespine stickleback ("stickleback"), a small, scaleless freshwater fish, as an endangered species in 1970 under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), listed over thirty-five years ago. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") awarded CEMEX, Inc., a contract to mine fifty-six million tons of sand and gravel from a location in Los Angeles County's Soledad Canyon. Although the mining would not take place within the stickleback's habitat, the project involves pumping water from the Santa Clara River and could cause portions of the river to run dry periodically. Parts of the Santa Clara River commonly dry out during the summer season, trapping stickleback in isolated pools. The Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed suit in 2002, claiming that the Service violated the ESA by failing to complete the designation of critical habitat for the stickleback. In affirming the lower court's decision, the Ninth Circuit, held that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Service to decide not to designate critical habitat for the stickleback. The Service was not required to ensure compliance with federal and state laws before issuing an ITS (incidental take statement) to CEMEX, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking extra-record exhibits offered to establish a new rationale for attacking the Service's decision. |
Case | ||||||||
| RESOLUCIÓN NÚMERO 0119 DE 2024- Colombia- Don't publish yet |
"Por medio de la cual se adiciona al artículo 2° de la Resolución 380 del 5 de marzo de 2021, algunas especies de tiburones y rayas marinas, como recursos pesqueros y se prohíbe la pesca dirigida de tiburones y rayas marinas en todo el territorio nacional." |
Statute | ||||||||||
| Ley Municipal Autonomica No. 239 para Animales de Compañía | Ley Municipal Autonomica No. 239 | This municipal law seeks to promote companion animal welfare and public health in La Paz, Bolivia. It is modified by "Ley municipal 316, 2018." This ordinance establishes the duties for companion animal owners in La Paz. It creates the mandatory municipal registries of companion animals, and service and assistance animals; the registry of dangerous dogs for citizen safety; and the registry of societies for animal protection, veterinary hospitals, and companion animal stores. It regulates the sale of companion animals and establishes penalties for those who mutilate their companion animals for aesthetic purposes. | Local Ordinance | |||||||||
| NV - Horses, wild - 504.490. Unlawful acts; penalty | N.R.S. 504.490 | NV ST 504.490 | This Nevada law prohibits any unauthorized person from doing certain acts with regard to wild horses such as removing them from public lands, harassing wild horses, or using aircraft or a motor vehicle to hunt wild horses (among other listed actions). Violation is a gross misdemeanor. A person who willfully and maliciously kills a wild horse is guilty of a category C felony. | Statute |