Results

Displaying 5961 - 5970 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
U.S. v. One Bell Jet Ranger II Helicopter 943 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1991)

Sam Jaksick, Michael Boyce, and Chris Christensen were charged with conspiring to violate both the Airborne Hunting Act (AHA), 16 U.S.C. 742j-1 and the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981.  They were also charged with knowingly using a helicopter to harass bighorn sheep in violation of the AHA.  After a  jury acquitted of the last two charges, the government, still convinced that the bighorn sheep had been harassed by the hunters, then brought this forfeiture action.  While the court denied the forfeiture based for the most part on actions by the government in the case, it did hold that defendants' use of the helicopter to get as close as possible to identify the best trophy ram constituted sufficient intent for harassment under the Airborne Hunting Act. 

Case
Pearson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Slip Copy, 2011 WL 559083 (C.A.6,2011)

Petitioner seeks review of the decision and order of the Secretary of the USDA, terminating his license to own and exhibit wild animals (82 lions, tigers, and bears), issuing a cease and desist order, and imposing civil sanctions in the amount of $93,975 in violation of the AWA. In 2006, inspection showed 280 incidents of non-compliance. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit first held that there was no abuse of discretion in failing to grant the continuance after a fire at Petitioner's home because he is unable to resulting establish prejudice. Further, the Court discounted Petitioner's challenge that the revocation of his license was not supported where the court found the evidence "substantial, perhaps overwhelming." 

Case
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

Biodiversity, Species Protection, and Animal Welfare Under International Law, Guillaume Futhazar, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2018-22 (2018).

Policy
Dutka v. Cassady 2012 WL 3641635 (Not Reported in A.3d) 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1901 A rescue organization had adopted out a dog. The new owners were walking the dog unleashed when it attacked another dog. The plaintiff's filed a complaint of common law negligence and recklessness, which alleged that the rescue organization should have known and should have warned them of the dangerous tendencies of the specific dog but failed to do so. Connecticut law imposed strict liability on an owner or keeper of such an animal, and the statute had not been expanded to include the seller or transferor. The issue then was whether the court should expand the scope of such a negligence claim and create a duty of care owed by transferors or sellers of dogs with known and/or unknown propensities for aggression. The court found that there was no support for expanding liability in common law negligence when the organization in this case did not own, possess, harbor or control the dog. The court declines to impose a duty on the rescue agency to inform adoptive families. Case
AK - Assistance Animal - Alaska's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws A. S. § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120 AK ST § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
VT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes 13 V.S.A. § 351 - 400; 20 V.S.A. § 2365b; 24 V.S.A. § 1943 VT ST T. 13 § 351 - 400; VT ST T. 20 § 2365b; VT ST T. 24 § 1943 This Vermont statutory section contains the amended anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Animal cruelty, as defined by § 352, occurs when a person overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, or deprives an animal which a person owns or possesses of adequate food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, or necessary medical attention. It is also animal cruelty if one owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting. The section excludes scientific research activities, hunting, farming, and veterinary activities among others. Statute
Sheldon Park Tenants v. ACHA The Allegheny Public Housing Authority decided to enforce it's "no pets" rule after years of unenforcement. This is a brief in arbitration. The tenants won. Includes a very interesting discussion of depression as a disability. Pleading
KS - Pet Trusts - Chapter 58A. Kansas Uniform Trust Code. K. S. A. 58a-408 KS ST 58a-408 This Kansas statute provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime (note that it does not state "domestic" or "pet" animal). The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. Property of a trust authorized by this section may be applied only to its intended use, except to the extent the court determines that the value of the trust property exceeds the amount required for the intended use. Statute
CO - Pet Shop - Article 80. Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act C. R. S. A. § 35-80-101 - 117 CO ST § 35-80-101 to 117 This Colorado Act regulates pet animal facilities (i.e., shelters, large kennels, and breeders). The Act covers licensing of the facilities and those activities deemed unlawful, such as selling a kitten or puppy under the age of 8 weeks and refusing a lawful inspection. Statute
LA - Cruelty, reporting - § 403.6. Reporting of neglect or abuse of animals LSA-R.S. 14:403.6 LA R.S. 14:403.6 This Louisiana law states that any state or local law enforcement officer, or any employee of government or of a government contractor who in his professional capacity routinely investigates alleged abuse or neglect or sexual abuse of a child, or abuse or neglect of an adult, who becomes aware of evidence of neglect or abuse of an animal shall report such incident to the law enforcement authority of the governing authority in which the incident has occurred or the local animal welfare authority. Statute

Pages