Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Ecology Center v. Russell | 361 F.Supp.2d 1310 (D.Utah,2005) |
The instant case is a Petition for Review of Agency Action, brought by The Ecology Center and The Aquarius Escalante Foundation (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs seek review of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Acting Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest (the DNF), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. The decision in question is the final approval by the DNF of the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project, (the Project) in which the DNF approved a plan to allow logging in the Griffin Springs area of the DNF. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the plan, claiming that the ROD violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Of particular concern, is the effect upon the northern goshawk. |
Case | ||||||||
| State v. DeMarco | 5 A.3d 527 (Conn.App., 2010) | 2010 WL 3860400 (Conn.App.); 124 Conn.App. 438 (2010) |
Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of cruelty to animals—specifically, cruelty to several dogs found within his home. Evidence supporting the conviction came from a warrantless entry into defendant's home after police found it necessary to do a "welfare check" based on an overflowing mailbox, 10-day notices on the door, and a "horrible odor" emanating from the home. In reversing the convictions, the appellate court determined that the facts did not suggest that defendant or the dogs were in immediate danger supporting the emergency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. |
Case | |||||||
| ID - Rabies - 500. DOGS AND CATS | ID ADC 02.04.21.500 | Idaho Admin. Code r. 02.04.21.500 | All dogs and cats imported into the state of Idaho must be accompanied by a CVI. Dogs and cats twelve (12) weeks of age or older shall be vaccinated for rabies. | Administrative | |||||||
| Map of Beagle Freedom Laws | This map contains the 15 state laws commonly called "Beagle Freedom Laws" as of January 2024. These laws mandate that retired research dogs be released for adoption when they are no longer needed for research purposes. Typically, the laws facilitate relationships between research facilities and non-profit animal rescues or other animal adoption organizations to allow those organizations to offer the retired dogs to members of the public. Iowa became the most recent state to enact such a law. | State map | |||||||||
| CA - Disaster - § 8608. California Animal Response Emergency System (CARES) program; | West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 8588.5, § 8608 | CA GOVT § 8588.5, § 8608 | The California Emergency Management Agency is directed to approve, adopt, and incorporate the California Animal Response Emergency System (CARES) program into the standardized emergency management system. | Statute | |||||||
| EU - Farming Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing | Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 |
This Regulation aims at enhancing protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing by establishing standard operating procedures, training of personnel, the use of new equipment, etc. Moreover, the objective pursued by this Regulation is to provide a level playing field within the internal market for all operators. |
Statute | ||||||||
| Fabrikant v. French | 722 F.Supp.2d 249 (N.D.N.Y., 2010) | 2010 WL 2774043 (N.D.N.Y.) |
Plaintiff Jody Fabrikant, who had recently placed an advertisement for the adoption of puppies, was in possession of fifteen animals, including fourteen dogs and one cat. Reacting to several complaints regarding the animals’ treatment, defendants, the Ulster County SPCA and employees, executed a search warrant resulting in Fabrikant's arrest and seizure of thirteen of her fifteen animals. Plaintiff subsequently asserted that her federal constitutional rights were violated during the course of her criminal prosecution for animal cruelty. With respect to all four federal claims, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment since the existence of probable cause (e.g., video recordings and photographs of the condition of the plaintiff’s home) insulated the defendants from liability for their decisions to seize Plaintiff's animals. |
Case | |||||||
| Kokechik Fishermen's Association v. Secretary of Commerce | 839 F.2d 795 (1988) | 268 U.S. App. D.C. 116 (1988) |
The Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation authorizing appellant salmon federation to take a fixed number of porpoise in connection to commercial fishing for salmon. Appellee commercial fishermen opposed the permit. The federation sought review of a judgment which preliminarily enjoined the Secretary from issuing the permit. |
Case | |||||||
| CA - Circus - Article 5. Circus Cruelty Prevention Act | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2207 - 2210 | CA FISH & G § 2207 - 2210 | The California Circus Cruelty Prevention Act, effective in 2020, states that a person shall not sponsor, conduct, or operate a circus in this state that uses any animal other than a domestic dog, domestic cat, or domesticated horse, or exhibit or use any other animals than those animals. The term “circus” means a performance before a live audience in which entertainment consisting of a variety of acts, such as acrobats, aerialists, clowns, jugglers, or stunts, is the primary attraction or principal business, but excludes rodeos. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 4 |
|
Policy |