Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Rogers | 708 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. 2000) | 184 Misc.2d 419; N.Y. Slip Op. 20246 | Defendant was convicted following jury trial in the Criminal Court of the City of New York of abandonment of animals. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, held that the warrantless entry into pet shop was justified under emergency doctrine and sufficient evidence supported his convictions. | Case | |
| Webber v. Patton | 558 P.2d 130 (Kan. 1976) | 221 Kan. 79 (1976) |
Veterinary costs and consequential losses are also allowed in determining damages, according this Kansas case. It should be noted that the animal at issue here was a domestic pig versus a companion animal, and the award of damages was secured by a statute that allows recovery for all damages for attacks on domestic animals by dogs. |
Case | |
| US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct | FWSR3ES20080120; 922201113000; ABC Code: C6 |
Identifies the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf and removes this Segment from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with court order, provides an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial interpretations. |
Administrative | ||
| American Bird Conservancy v. Harvey | 232 F. Supp. 3d 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) | 2017 WL 477968 (E.D.N.Y., 2017) |
Plaintiff, American Bird Conservancy, is a non-profit organization that was dedicated to the conservation of the Piping Plover (a threatened species) in this case. The individual Plaintiffs, David A. Krauss and Susan Scioli were also members of the organization, who observed Piping Plovers at Jones Beach, in New York State for many years. The Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendant Rose Harvey, the Commissioner of the New York State “Parks Office”. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Commissioner failed to act while members of the public routinely fed, built shelters, and cared for the feral cats on Jones Beach. As the cat colonies flourished, the Piping Plover population decreased due to attacks by the cats. The Plaintiffs contended that by failing to take measures to decrease the feral cat population, the Commissioner was allowing the cats to prey on the Piping Plover, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The District Court, held that: (1) the affidavit and documentary evidence provided by the Alley Cat Allies (ACA) organization was outside the scope of permissible supporting materials for the motion to dismiss. (2)The Plaintiffs had standing to bring action alleging violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Commissioners motion to dismiss was denied. |
Case | |
| De Leon v. Vornado Montehiedra Acquisition L.P. | 166 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.P.R. 2016) | 2016 WL 814825 (D.P.R. 2016) | The defendant in this case sought to dismiss plaintiff’s case, stating that the plaintiff claim did not have proper constitutional standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court denied defendant’s request and held that plaintiff did present sufficient evidence to establish standing under the ADA. In order to establish standing, the plaintiff needed to prove three elements: (1) actual or threatened injury, (2) causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a favorable court decision can redress the injury. The court determined that plaintiff did satisfy all three elements by showing that plaintiff’s disabled daughter was not allowed in defendant’s shopping mall with her service dog after the mall security guard was not properly informed of protocol regarding service dogs. Ultimately, the security guard mistakenly believed that the service dog needed documentation in order to enter the mall; however, the dog was properly identified as a certified service dog and should have been allowed into the mall. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied. | Case | |
| NE - Trusts - Chapter 30. Decedents' Estates; Protection of Persons and Property. | Neb. Rev. St. § 30-3834 | NE ST § 30-3834 | This statute represents Nebraska's pet trust law. The law adopts the language of Section 408 of the Uniform Trust Act and states that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. 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. | Statute | |
| KY - Property - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. | KRS § 258.245 | KY ST § 258.245 | This Kentucky statute provides that all licensed dogs are personal property and can thus be subject to larceny. It further states that it is unlawful (except as otherwise provided by law) for anyone, including a peace officer, to kill or attempt to kill a licensed dog. | Statute |