Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mongelli v. Cabral | 632 N.Y.S.2d 927 (City of Younkers Ct. 1995) | 166 Misc.2d 240 (1995) |
A couple boarded their pet bird with a couple who groomed and boarded birds while the wife underwent extensive medical treatment. There was a dispute between the owners and the boarders over whether the bird was a gift or the subject of long-term boarding. The court found that the boarders had not established that the bird had been a gift. |
Case | |
| AL - Dog Fighting - Activities relating to fighting of dogs prohibited; violations; confiscation; | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-29 | AL ST § 3-1-29 | This Alabama statute constitutes the state's dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a class C felony for any person to own, possess, keep or train any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; for amusement or gain, to cause any dog to fight with another dog, or cause any dogs to injure each other; or to permit any of the above acts. The law also makes it a class C felony to knowingly be present or be a spectator at dogfights. | Statute | |
| Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass'n | 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir., 2004) | 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 119 (2004) |
Activist sued a state-created agricultural association under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge a rule that limited demonstrations to “free expression zones” outside a state-owned performance facility. The Court of Appeals held that the association was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. It held that the parking lots and walkways were public fora, and thus time, place and manner restrictions on speech had to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest. The Court held that the state did not have a significant interest in restricting protestors to these zones. The rule was not narrowly tailored enough to promote the association's interest in preventing traffic congestion, and restricted more speech than was necessary. Therefore, the rule unduly infringed free speech on its face. |
Case | |
| US - Whales - Notice of Availability of the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale | 2004 WL 1924051 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 04-19775 |
NMFS announces the availability for public review of the draft revised Recovery Plan (Plan) for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Plan, and will consider all substantive comments received during the review period before submitting the Plan for final approval. (Note that the specific concern with right whales is collisions with ships.) |
Administrative | |
| Argentina - Wildlife - Decreto 666, 1997 | Decreto 666, 1997 | This “Decreto” regulates Law No. 22,421, relating to the law for conservation of wildlife, emphasizing the management powers of the national enforcement authority, through the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. This regulatory decree also regulates the practice of hunting and creates the National Registry of Hunters. The National Registry of Hunters deals in: sport hunting, commercial hunting, hunting with scientific or educational purposes, and hunting for control of harmful species. Other topics that Decreto 666 regulates include: sanctuaries, breeding stations for wildlife, import, export and interprovincial trade of wildlife and byproducts. In the latter, it is mandatory to register in the corresponding registry of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and to keep books that record the movement of such animals and products. It is also mandatory to supply the reports that are required and to facilitate access at all times of the authorized officials for inspection and control. The law created the Advisory Commission for Wildlife and its Habitat to propose solutions to problems relating to the sustainable use of wild fauna. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is the authority of enforcement with national scope. Its responsibility is to classify the wild fauna species, to set the corresponding tariffs for the registry of sport hunting, among other responsibilities. The National Service of health and agro-food quality (SENASA) is in charge of the sanitary control of wildlife subject to national and international trade. | Statute | ||
| Utah Animal Rights Coalition v. Salt Lake County | 566 F.3d 1236 (C.A.10 (Utah),2009) |
The plaintiffs-appellants (Utah Animal Rights Coalition (UARC) and five individuals) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble after the individual plaintiffs attempted to protest a circus in South Jordan, Utah. The district court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that, without a showing of harm, the UARC did not meet its burden to demonstrate an injury in fact. The court did find that the individuals properly pleaded harm to establish standing. With regard to the § 1983 action, this court ruled that the district court correctly determined that county officials were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Case | ||
| 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 | |
| State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County | 91 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. 2002) |
Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded. The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing). The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right. |
Case | ||
| CR - Welfare - BIENESTAR DE LOS ANIMALES (Law 7451 on Animal Welfare) | Law 7451 |
(Text in Spanish). The law that regulates animal welfare in Costa Rica; its terms are based on the results of the OIE conference in Australia in 1994. |
Statute |