Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | ||
| Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2006) 42 AAR 262 | [2006] AATA 94 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import five Asian elephants. After an initial hearing, further evidence was sought in relation to the condition and nature of the facilities at the zoos. The Tribunal decided that the importation of the elephants should be in accordance with a permit issued under s 303CG of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). |
Case |
| Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC | 90 So.3d 915 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) | 2012 WL 2327814 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) |
While walking his dog one evening, the plaintiff's husband was attacked by fire ants. In an attempt to remove the ants off his person, the plaintiff's husband collapsed in the shower. Two days later, he died. As a representative for her husband's estate and in her own capacity, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against her landlord. After the trial court granted the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. Affirming the lower court's decision, the appeals court reasoned that since the landlord did not harbor, possess, or introduce the fire ants onto the premises, the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiff. |
Case |
| Wilkins v. Daniels | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 6644465 (S.D.Ohio, 2012) |
Various owners of exotic and wild animals filed a lawsuit in order to obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction against the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director, David Daniels. The owners of the exotic and wild animals argued the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act, which the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director were trying to enforce, was unconstitutional. The district court denied the owners’ motion for obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction reasoning that the exceptions to the Act’s ban on owning wild and exotic animals does not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, that the legislature had a legitimate purpose so as to not violate procedural due process with regards to micro-chipping wild and exotic animals, and that the Act did not constitute an unconstitutional takings. Significantly, the court recognized that owners of wild and exotic animals have a limited or qualified property interest in said animals. |
Case | |
| Ley 430, 1991 | Ley 430, 1991 | This is the general law of fisheries and aquaculture. It establishes the guidelines for the preservation of hydrological resources, extractive fishing activities, and research activities in terrestrial waters, sea beaches, inland waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and adjacent areas. This law also regulates transformation and processing fishing activities and storage, transportation, or commercialization of hydro-biological resources. | Statute | |
| TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 824.001 - 004; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065; § 62.016 | TX HEALTH & S § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016 | These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws. | Statute |
| NV - Hunting, exotics - 504.295. Prohibited acts; regulations; licenses; inapplicability to alternative livestock | N. R. S. 504.295 | NV ST 504.295 | Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom. | Statute |
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Horen v. Commonwealth | 479 S.E. 2d 553 (Va. 1997) |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| Haviland v. Butz | 543 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976) | 543 F.2d 169, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 615, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 22 |
This case addresses whether the Secretary of Agriculture intended to include “animal acts” under the AWA. Animal acts are any performance of animals where such animals are trained to perform some behavior or action or are part of a show, performance, or exhibition. Defendant presented an animal act with dogs and ponies to paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. Defendant asserted that he did not “exhibit” animals simply by showing dogs and ponies and argued that the Secretary unconstitutionally added “animal acts” to the AWA. The court held that the inclusion of “animal acts” was authorized as“[t]he words ‘includes’ and ‘such as’ [in the AWA] point convincingly to the conclusion that the listing of types of exhibitions in the statutory text was intended to be but partial and illustrative.” |
Case |