Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shumate v. Drake University | 846 N.W.2d 503 (Iowa. 2014) | Plaintiff Shumate was barred from bringing a dog that she was training, into the classroom and to another school event. Shumate worked as a service dog trainer, while she was a student at Drake University Law School, the Defendant in this case. In 2011, Shumate filed a lawsuit alleging that Drake University discriminated against her as a service dog trainer in violation of Iowa Code chapter 216C. She alleged that chapter 216C, implicitly provided service dog trainers with a private right to sue. The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the statute does not provide service dog trainers with a private right to sue, nor did it include them under the coverage of chapter 216. The Court reasoned that although Shumate trained dogs to assist the disabled, she was not covered because she is not a person with a disability. The Court stated that closely related statutes expressly created private enforcement actions to aid the disabled while chapter 216C does not. Because an implied right of action would circumvent the procedures of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the Iowa legislature purposely omitted a private right to sue from chapter 216C. The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Shumate's petition with prejudice. | Case | ||
| Commonwealth v. Bishop | 67 Mass.App.Ct. 1116 (2006) |
David Bishop was convicted of animal cruelty and failing to provide a sanitary environment for his five dogs. He was ordered to pay over $60,000 in order to provide for the medical expenses that his dogs needed after they were taken away from him. While defendant argued that the amount of restitution was excessive, the court found that each of the five dogs had medical bills in excess of $10,000. Defendant was sentenced to three months in a house of corrections, and ten years probation. |
Case | ||
| DC - Dogs - § 22-1311. Allowing dogs to go at large. | DC ST § 22-1311 | DC CODE § 22-1311 | The following District of Columbia statute prohibits dogs that the owner knows to be fierce or dangerous, to the danger or annoyance of the inhabitants, from running at large; it also prohibits female dogs in heat to run at large. | Statute | |
| CT - Pet Trust - Chapter 802C. Trusts | C. G. S. A. § 45a-489a | CT ST § 45a-489a | Connecticut enacted its "pet trust" law in 2009. Under the law, a testamentary or inter vivos trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal or animals alive during the settlor's or testator's lifetime. The trust terminates when the last surviving animal named in the trust dies. The trust must designate a "trust protector" who acts on behalf of the animals named in the trust. | Statute | |
| NY - Rehabilitators, wildlife - Part 184. Wildlife Rehabilitators. | 6 NY ADC 184.1 - 7 | 6 NYCRR 184.1 - 7 | These New York regulations concern the qualifications for appointment as a state wildlife rehabilitator. Section 184.1 first states that, "The purpose of this Part is to establish a specially trained group of individuals, collectively called wildlife rehabilitators, to provide for the care of injured and debilitated wildlife so that such wildlife may be returned to the wild." Under the chapter, "wildlife rehabilitation" means the practice of providing care for injured or debilitated wildlife, including their capture, housing, feeding, emergency treatment and release to the wild. | Administrative | |
| UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 | 1991 c. 64 |
This Act extends the powers of inspection for the purposes of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 to premises not covered by a licence under that Act, thereby enabling local authorities to investigate suspicions that a dog breeding establishment is operating without the necessary license |
Statute | ||
| In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation-MDL No. 2165 | 704 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App.,2013) | 2013 WL 45871 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App.,2013) |
After parties in a lawsuit over listing species as endangered or threatened agreed upon a settlement, the Safari Club motioned to intervene because the settlement might affect three species that the club's members hunt. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right because the club lacked Article III standing and denied a permissive intervention because it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the parties; the court then approved the settlement and the club appealed. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision that the club lacked Article III standing for intervening as of right. The appeals court, however, in view of uncertainty whether Article III standing was required for permissive intervention, declined to exercise pendant appellate jurisdiction over the permissive intervention appeal. |
Case | |
| Animal & Natural Resource Law Review Volume XIX |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawAnimal & Natural Resource Law ReviewVol. |
Policy | |||
| Viva! v. Adidas | 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 (Cal., 2007) | 2007 WL 2080000 (Cal. 2007), 41 Cal.4th 929 | Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law. | Case | |
| AR - Hunting, remote - 002.00.1-05.08. Prohibited Methods for Hunting Wildlife | AR ADC 002.00.1-05.08 | Ark. Admin. Code 002.00.1-05.08 | This Arkansas regulation prohibits computer-assisted hunting, among other activities. | Administrative |