Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Lujan | 768 F.Supp. 360 (D.D.C.,1991) |
This case was brought the Humane Society of the United States and various coalitions of homeowner/citizens against the United States Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent the implementation of defendants' decision to permit limited public deer hunting on a national wildlife refuge in Fairfax County, Virginia. On cross motions for final judgment on the record, the District Court held that the suit under Endangered Species Act was precluded by failure to give proper presuit notice. The court stated that the ESA clearly states that “written notice” of the violation must be given to the Secretary and to the violator as a condition precedent to suit. The court also found that the FWS's decision took account of relevant factors and thus was not arbitrary or capricious. |
Case | ||
| CA - Service Animal - § 600.2. Allowing dog to injure or kill guide, signal or service dog; punishment; restitution | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2 | CA PENAL § 600.2 | It is unlawful for any person to permit any dog he or she owns or controls to injure or kill any service dog while the service dog is in discharge of its duties. A violation is an infraction punishable by a fine if the injury is caused by the person's failure to exercise ordinary care. A violation is a misdemeanor if the injury is caused by reckless disregard in the exercise of control over his or her dog. A violation in this case shall be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Upon conviction, the defendant shall make restitution, including veterinary bills and replacement costs. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman | 469 F.3d 826 (9th Cir.(Cal.), 2006) | 2006 WL 3375347 (9th Cir.(Cal.)), 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10, 733 |
Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Animal Welfare Institute ("AWI"), and three individuals, challenged the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). Plaintiffs challenge the decision not to adopt the Draft Policy under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") as arbitrary and capricious. The district court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' suit because it determined that the USDA's decision did not constitute reviewable final agency action. This court disagreed, finding that at least one of the plaintiffs has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Further, the court concluded that the district court has authority under the APA to review the USDA's decision not to adopt the Draft Policy. Opinion Vacated on Rehearing en Banc by Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman , 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir., 2007). |
Case | |
| EU - Research - Council Directive 86/609/EEC regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purp | Council Directive 86/609/EEC |
The European Union has established a framework to protect animals used for experimental or scientific purposes by ensuring that they are adequately cared for and that no unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted. |
Statute | ||
| CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings |
The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES. |
Treaty | |||
| Sierra Club v. Morton | 405 U.S. 727 (U.S.Cal. 1972) | 92 S.Ct. 1361, 3 ERC 2039, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. 29,001, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,192 (U.S.Cal. 1972) |
The Petitioner, the Sierra Club, brought this action for a declaratory judgment and an injunction to restrain federal officials from approving an extensive skiing development in the Mineral King Valley in the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club did not allege that the challenged development would affect the club or its members in their activities, but rather argued that the project would adversely change the area's aesthetics and ecology. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the club lacked standing and had not shown irreparable injury. On grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the Sierra Club, which asserted a only special interest in conservation of natural game refuges and forests, lacked standing under Administrative Procedure Act to maintain the action because it could not demonstrate that its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the proposed project. |
Case | |
| CA - Importation - Subchapter 3.2. Importation of Wild Animals | Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 30070 - 30086 | 17 CCR §§ 30070 - 30086 | This set of regulations establishes the import permit and quarantine requirements for wild and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| US - AWA - 1985 Public Law 99-198 | 1985 PL 99-198 | The set of amendments that Congress adopted in December of 1985 focused almost entirely on the issue of animal research, (1) the minimum level of care is stated with more specificity, (2) animal research facilities are required to create Institutional Animal Committees, which include the presence of a public member from outside the facility, (3) trade secrets of research facilities are protected by a new section of the AWA. | Statute | ||
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 331: Section 6367 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6367 (1918). | Section 6367 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the transportation of wild animals. Specifically, the statute establishes the duty of care that must be given to the public when transporting a wild animal. | Statute | ||
| GA - Disaster Planning - Georgia Emergency Operations Plan | The Georgia Emergency Operations Plan contains several references to pets during state disasters. Specifically, Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 considers the need to plan for the "safety and well-being of household pets" and the coordination of "animal evacuation assistance." | Administrative |