Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL- Wildlife - 220-2-.154. Standards Of Care For Wildlife Used For Public Exhibition Purposes. | AL ADC 220-2-.154 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 220-2-.154 | This regulation classifies all species of wildlife into three separate categories (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and creates a permit requirement for anyone wishing to exhibit those animals. It also includes various rules governing the housing, care, and display of wildlife possessed for public exhibition purposes. | Administrative | |
| Prasad v. Wepruk | 2004CarswellBC946 | 2004 BCSC 578 |
Plaintiff Prasad, an elderly newpaper-deliverer, was attacked in the street by defendant owner Wepruk's usually chained guard-dog, which escaped due to a rusted chain. The court found the defendant strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter's subjective test: he knew the dog was aggressive, but kept it anyway and it harmed Prasad. He was also liable under the objective test for negligence, for not taking reasonable precautions to ensure the dog's chain was in good repair, in order to prevent foreseeable harm to others. damages of $35,000 were awarded for Prasad's injuries and lost future earnings. |
Case | |
| Students for Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) v. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of University of Oregon (IACUC) | 833 P.2d 337 (1992) | 113 Or.App. 523 (1992) |
Appeal of a circuit court decision finding a summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit where a state university student organization and other parties brought suit against the university committee that supervised animal research, including a research proposal for cranial surgery on Macaque monkeys. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had an interest in the governmental decisions of the committee, had established a denial of access related to that interest, thus had standing to bring the suit. |
Case | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Tuggle | 607 F.Supp.2d 1095 (D.Ariz.,2009) | 2009 WL 942833 (D.Ariz.) |
In this case, the Plaintiffs, WildEarth Guardians and the Rewilding Institute (Guardians) and the Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) challenged procedures for wolf control actions as part of the Mexican wolf reintroduction project within the Blue Range Recovery Area (BRWRA) by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Plaintiffs claims centered on NEPA and ESA violations based on USFWS' adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding in 2003(MOU) and issuance of Standard Operating Procedure 13 (SOP). USFWS filed motions to dismiss these claims for lack of jurisdiction because they argued that neither the MOU nor SOP 13 was a final agency action. Here, the rights and responsibilities of the interested parties were spelled out in the 2003 MOU and SOP 13, similar to if USFWS had issued an interpretive rule covering wolf control measures. Thus, the Court found that the 2003 MOU and SOP 13 "mark the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process in respect to wolf control measures." The Court also found that the plaintiffs presented duplicate claims under the ESA and APA. USFWS's motion to dismiss was also denied as were the duplicative claims. |
Case | |
| Raymond v. Lachmann | 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). | 264 A.D.2d 340; 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 07127 |
Trial court allowed visitation in property dispute over cat between roommates. Later, that court determined it was not in the aged cat's best interests to be shuffled back and forth so revoked its decision, awarding it to the non-possessory roommate in a straight property analysis. The appellate court determined that it would be best for the cat to remain with the possessory party because of his age and the amount of time he had already been living there. |
Case | |
| Animal Rights and Advocacy Issues | Policy | ||||
| US - Assistance animals, housing - § 100.204 Reasonable accommodations. | 24 C. F. R. § 100.204 | This section states that it is unlawful any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas. Examples of such situations are also given. | Administrative | ||
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke | 868 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2017) | 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8478 (9th Cir. 2017) | In this case, the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society (collectively “CBD”) challenged the determination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that the Sonoran Desert Area bald eagle (“desert eagle”) is not a distinct population segment (“DPS”) eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are two requirements for DPS status: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs. Here, the parties agreed that the desert eagle population is discrete, but they disputed whether the population is significant. CBD argued that if FWS found that a population segment satisfies any of the four listed significance factors, it is required to conclude that the population segment is significant. The court held that FWS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the desert eagle did not satisfy significance requirement for being a DPS, even though it found that the desert eagle satisfied the persistence requirement and one significance factors. The district court's grant of summary judgment to FWS was affirmed. | Case | |
| NY - Wildlife, Exotics - Title 1. Short Title; Definitions; General Provisions | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0101 to 11-0113 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0101 to 11-0113 | This set of statutes represents the definitional portion of New York's Fish and Wildlife Law. Among the provisions include definitions for game and non-game, a definition for "wild animal," which includes big cats, non-domesticated dogs, bears, and venomous reptiles, and the state's hunter harassment law. The section also provides that the State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownership. | Statute | |
| MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.43301 - 43303 | MI ST 324.43301 - 43303 | These sections place limitations on acreage held for sporting purposes and on acreage within 2 miles of other lands held for sporting purposes. | Statute |