Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Funding State - Pittman-Roberson Act (Chapter 5B. Wildlife Restoration) | 16 USC 669 - 669l | The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. However, no money shall be expended until the state in question assents to the provisions of this chapter and has passed laws for the conservation of wildlife, which includes a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of the fish and game department. | Statute | |
| Gibson v. Rezvanpour | 601 S.E.2d 848 (Ga. 2004) | 268 Ga. App. 377 (Ga. 2004) |
The prospective buyer of a home was bitten by the homeowner's dog. The prospective buyer filed a claim against the homeowners, real estate agents, real estate brokers and the real estate agency. The State Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. |
Case |
| Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman | 315 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2003) | Animal rights group brought action challenging validity of regulation exempting breeders who sell dogs from their residences from licensure under Animal Welfare Act. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, J., held that regulation was invalid, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Randolph, Circuit Judge, held that regulation was reasonable interpretation of Congressional intent. | Case | |
| MD - Housing - Subtitle 8. Pet Protections | MD Code, Real Property, § 14-801 - 806 | MD REAL PROP § 14-801 - 806 | This subtitle applies to an action for possession of real property filed on or after November 1, 2023. In addition, by October 1, 2023, the Department of Agriculture shall develop and publish on its website a fact sheet that provides information about how a person may care for and protect any pets in the event the person is evicted or loses possession of the person's property. When possession of real property is delivered to a landlord following an eviction or other described action, law enforcement or other official must immediately inspect the premises for any pet and provide that pet to the tenant. If the tenant is not present, that official must contact an animal shelter or animal rescue to take possession of the pet along with contact information of the former tenant. | Statute |
| ZooCats, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 417 Fed.Appx. 378(5th Cir. 2011) | This petition followed a final order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ordering ZooCats, Inc. to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and revoking ZooCats's animal exhibitor license. ZooCats argued on appeal that the Secretary erred in extending certain filing deadlines, erred in determining certain audio tapes were inadmissible evidence, and erred in determining that ZooCats did not qualify as a “research facility” under the AWA. Addressing each of these claims, the 5th Circuit held that the Administrative Law Judge had broad discretion to manage its docket to promote judicial economy, efficiency, and to protect the interests of the parties. The Sixth Circuit further found that even if the tapes were admissible, failure to admit the tapes would be a harmless error because there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's determination that ZooCats wilfully violated the AWA. Finally, the 6th Circuit held ZooCats was not a research facility under the AWA because it had not researched, tested, or experimented in the almost ten years since it registered as a research facility. The 6th Circuit therefore denied Petitioner’s petition. | Case | |
| CA - Euthanasia - § 599d. Policy of state regarding adoptable and treatable animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599d | CA PENAL § 599d | This law provides that it is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. (Editor's note: The law was part of SB 1785 (the Hayden Act) that expanded the holding time for companion animals and the duties of pounds and shelters who act as depositories for lost or stray animals). | Statute |
| U.S. v. Wahchumwah | 710 F.3d 862 (9th Cir., 2012) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2304, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2747 |
The United States Fish and Wildlife Services investigated a tip that the defendant was selling eagle parts in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Upon appeal, the defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the undercover agent’s warrantless use of a concealed audio visual device to record the transaction inside the defendant’s home, but the appeals court disagreed. However, the appeals court reversed the defendant's conviction on Counts 2 or 3 and Counts 4 or 5 because those counts were multiplicitous. |
Case |
| Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. | 604 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Mass.,2009) | 2009 WL 678744 (D.Mass.) |
The plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. and Wyeth Corporation, seeking economic damages suffered from the purchase and injection of her dog with ProHeart® 6 to prevent heartworm. The complaint alleged products liability/failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of state deceptive business practices, among others. In 2004, defendants recalled ProHeart® 6 in response to a request by FDA due to reported adverse reactions. This Court found that Massachusetts law follows the traditional “economic loss rule,” where such losses are not recoverable in in tort and strict liability actions where there has been no personal injury or property damage. Here, the plaintiff was barred from recovering because she has not alleged any personal injury or property damage under her products liability claim. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendants' deceptive act caused some injury and compsensable loss. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. |
Case |
| CITES Conf. 9.24 |
This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals. |
Treaty | ||
| People v. Chenault | 227 Cal. App. 4th 1503, review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal.App.Dist.4, 2014), review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | Darrell Chenault was convicted on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age and sentenced to 75 years to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity, and that the presence of the dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. The appellate court concluded that a trial court has authority under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a therapy or support dog during a witness’s testimony.” The court did “not believe that the presence of a support dog is inherently more prejudicial than the presence of a support person,” citing the New York case of Tohom. Chinault argued that “individualized showings of necessity” should have been required for F. and C. before the support dog could be present in the courtroom. The appellate court concluded however that “a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog is not required by the federal Constitution,” for which Tohom was again cited. Based on the court's review of the record, the appellate court concluded that the trial court made implicit findings that the presence of Asta, the support dog, would assist or enable F. and C. to testify completely and truthfully without undue harassment or embarrassment. The court also took measures to reduce any possible prejudice to Chenault by setting forth logistics for the entry, positioning, and departure of the support dog, along with F. and C., during jury recesses so the dog was as unobtrusive and least disruptive as reasonably possible. The judgment was affirmed. | Case |