Results
Displaying 6621 - 6630 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brower v. Daley | 93 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (2000) |
Based on the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary’s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies. |
Case | ||
| M.E.R. c/ B.A.B. del C.| Divorcio por presentación conjunta | Expte. N° SI-29770-2022 | In August 2022, Amorina Bascoy and Emmanuel Medina jointly petitioned for divorce after ten years of marriage. The couple did not have children but shared their life with Popeye and Kiara, their two beloved dogs. the couple filed their agreement regarding the division of marital assets and the care of Kiara and Popeye, together with the communication agreement regarding their care and visitation time, where visitation dates and times would be assessed flexibly by both spouses. In this instance, the family judge recognized the agreement reached by the spouses regarding the care of their beloved dogs, where each divorcee would keep the custody of a dog according to each dog's preference. In addition, in her holding, the judge stated that "although our legal system has not yet advanced in such a way that it can anticipate and/or regulate the situation in which members who also make up the family and have joined it -will be after the termination of the relationship, in this case, two dogs, POPEYE and KIARA-, this brings a reality that cannot be denied and a question that must be answered but those of us that have an obligation to provide a response because, it is known, that everything that is not prohibited by law is otherwise permitted, even in the absence of specific rules that establish it." the judges continues "Thus, we can say that it is known that animals, especially domestic ones, are sensitive beings, who feel, miss, rejoice, suffer, and who acquire habits, the reason why it is undoubted that the change that will produce the separation of the spouses, will also affect them. It will be their owners, then, who are in a better position, to look out for the dogs' interests. Such an understanding has been accepted in some countries, such as Spain, in the same way as in our jurisprudence. This case joins the set of cases in Argentina, such as the Tita and Sidney cases, and other countries in the region where the consideration of animals as non-human persons is becoming more common among judges. | Case | ||
| MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected | Proposal 14-1 (2014) |
This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. |
Statute | ||
| US - AWA - Licensing and Inspection Requirements for Dealers of Dogs Intended for Hunting, Breeding, or Security Purposes | 2003 WL 1092620 (F.R.) | Docket No. 99-087-3 |
The update of the Definition of Dealer, in Section 1.1 of the Regulation is made to reflect the policy that only wholesale dealers of dogs intended for hunting, security purposes, and breeding, and not dealers of retail services, will be controlled by the regulation. Thus, there is only a minor change to the definition of dealer, in that it now explicitly excludes any retail outlets where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding or security purposes. |
Administrative | |
| CA - Assistance Animal - California Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2, 600.5, West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 54 - 55.32; West's Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 39839; West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 30850 - 30854; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121680; Cal. Vehicle Code § 21963; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 365.5 - .7; West's Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 12553 - 12554; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122317 - 122319.5 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| New York Revised Statutes 1829: Title 6: Section 26 | N.Y. Rev. stat. tit. 6, 26 (1829) | The law contained in Title 6, Section 26 of the New York Revised Statutes of 1829 concerns the offense of maliciously killing an animal of another. The statute describes the type of animals covered and the punishment for killing, wounding, or maiming such an animal. In addition, the statute also states the punishment for the offense of cruelty to animals. | Statute | ||
| Wall v. City of Brookfield | 406 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2005) | 2005 WL 1022967 (7th Cir.) |
A dog that was constantly in violation of local leash ordinances was held as a stray by the town. The owner of the dog brought a section 1983 action claiming deprivation of the dog's companionship without due process and the trial court held in favor of the town. The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that only a post-deprivation hearing was necessary under the statute (which defendant could have received had she filed a petition with the court). |
Case | |
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 25.577 | Ley 25.577 | This law prohibits hunting or intentional capture of any of the cetacean species specified in the appendix. It establishes fines for those who violate this law of not less than 1 million Argentinian pesos ($1,000,000). | Statute | ||
| Scales v. State | 601 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App. 2020) | Defendant, Jade Derrick Scales, was convicted of two counts of cruelty to non-livestock animals which constituted a state felony. Michelle Stopka had found two puppies in an alley and took them in. On February 8, 2015, Defendant confronted Stopka in her front yard holding a knife and wearing a mask and brass knuckles. Leonard Wiley, the man Stopka was residing with, confronted the Defendant and a brief confrontation ensued which resulted in both individuals sustaining a cut. Stopka soon discovered that both puppies had been sliced open and were bleeding. The puppies did not survive their injuries. Defendant’s sentence was enhanced to a second-degree felony based on the finding of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon during the commission of, or during immediate flight following, the commission of the offense and the fact that the Defendant had a previous conviction for a second-degree-felony offense of burglary of a habitation. Defendant was sentenced to seven years and a fine of $2,000. The Defendant subsequently appealed. The first issue raised on appeal by the Defendant was the deadly weapon finding which the the Court found was appropriate. The second issue regarded a jury instruction error. The Defendant contended that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a deadly-weapon finding is only appropriate when the weapon is used or exhibited against a human being. The Court found that although a deadly-weapon instruction should not have been given, the error was not egregious and therefore overruled the issue because a jury could have reasonably believed that the Defendant used the same knife to both inflict wounds upon the puppies and Leonard. The failure to provide such a jury instruction did not materially affect the jury’s deliberations or verdict. The third issue raised by the Defendant was that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court overruled this issue as well. The Fourth issue raised by Defendant was that his prosecution was based on two identical indictments for the same conduct committed in one criminal episode which violated double jeopardy and due process principles. The Defendant did not preserve his claim of double jeopardy and the Court further found that two separate dogs were the object of the criminal act and each dog could have been prosecuted separately. No double jeopardy violation was found on the face of the record and, therefore, the Defendant did not qualify for an exception to the preservation rule. The fifth issue Defendant raised was that his sentence was illegal because the range of punishment for the offense for which he was convicted was illegally enhanced. The Court overruled this issue because his conviction was not illegally enhanced. The trial court’s judgment was ultimately affirmed. | Case | ||
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 102 (voter wildlife initatives) | Proposition 102 (2000) | This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters. | Statute |