Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. St. Pierre | 578 F.Supp. 1424 (D. S.D. 1983) |
Defendant challenged his felony indictment under the MBTA after selling an "invitation stick" that contained golden eagle feathers. The court held that the act encompasses migratory birds parts, not just whole birds so the indictment would stand. However, in a unique decision it held that the imposition of a felony conviction would violate due process where the statute does not specify any degree of intent. As a result, the court said it would sentence defendant under the misdemeanor provision of the statute if convicted. For further discussion on the intersection of the intent component of the MBTA with the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| US - Sharks - Chapter 38. Fishery Conservation and Management | 16 U.S.C.A. § 1857 | The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 amended Sec. 1857 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The amendment effectively closed a loophole that allowed vessels to transport illegally obtained shark fins so long as no sharks were finned aboard the vessel. The act makes it illegal to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) at sea; to have custody, control, or possession of any such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; to transfer any such fin from one vessel to another vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin in such transfer, without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or to land any such fin that is not naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass without such fins naturally attached. Essentially, all sharks must be brought aboard with their fins attached. There is a rebuttable presumption under the Act that if any shark fin (including the tail) is found aboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, without being naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, such fin was transferred in violation of the Act. | Statute | |
| McGinnis v. State | 541 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). |
In an animal cruelty prosecution, the trial court should first instruct the jury on the definition of torture of an animal. Then, the court can permit the jury to determine whether the acts and circumstances of the case showed the torture of an animal. |
Case | |
| U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection | 867 A.2d 1147 (N.J. 2005) | 182 N.J. 461 (S. Ct. 2005) |
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife executed an administrative order preventing the issuance of bear hunting permits. Hunters and hunting organizations sought judicial review of the administrative decision. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ultimately held it was within the authority of the Environmental Protection Commissioner to approve policies of the Fish & Wildlife Council and, therefore, execute the administrative order against bear hunting permits. |
Case |
| Karnail Singh and others v. State of Haryana | CRR-533-2013 High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh | The fact of the case arose in 2004 and related the transportation of cows from one province to another in violation of restrictions on the export of cows for meat slaughter. An opinion on that case was given in 2013, then a revised petition was submitted to this court, and several years later this opinion was given. Much of the 100 pages did not deal with the events of the case, but with the jurisprudence of animal rights. The ultimate holding of the judge directed a state agency to enforce a number of very specific standards for the transportation of animals. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared, in this exceptional judgment, that animals and birds have legal rights, just as humans. It further declared citizens as the “guardians of [the] animal kingdom” with a duty to ensure their welfare and protection. Justice Rajiv Sharma, in his order, said, “All the animals have honour and dignity. Every specie[s] has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks. The Corporations, Hindu idols, holy scriptures, rivers have been declared legal entities, and thus, in order to protect and promote greater welfare of animals including avian and aquatic, animals are required to be conferred with the status of legal entity/legal person. The animals should be healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour without pain, fear and distress. They are entitled to justice. The animals cannot be treated as objects or property.” | Case | |
| WY - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. 1977 § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | These Wyoming statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include damage done to livestock by dogs, rabies vaccination requirements, and municipal powers to regulate dogs. | Statute |
| Hass v. Money | 849 P.2d 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993) |
While the Moneys (Defendants) were on vacation, they boarded their dog at Peppertree Animal Clinic (Peppertree). On June 16, 1990, Julie Hass (Plaintiff), an employee of Peppertree, was bitten by the dog while walking him. The Court reverses the Defendants' summary judgment and remands to the trial court because the dog bite statute applies a strict liability standard and that the owner of a dog is only the person who has legal right to the dog. |
Case | |
| People v. Lee (Unpublished) | 2004 WL 2914207 (Mich. App.) (Unpublished) |
Known and suspected dogfighters, Roderick Lee, Shedrick Lee, and Demar Garvin were jointly tried before a single jury for drug-related offenses. The jury convicted each defendant of conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver 650 or more grams of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced each defendant to a prison term of 30 to 60 years. Defendants appealed on equal protection grounds, on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, on grounds of insufficient evidence and of improper admission of prejudicial and/or irrelevant evidence, on grounds of improper jury instruction, and further argued that they were entitled to resentencing. The appellate court confirmed the convictions and sentences. |
Case | |
| In Defense of Animals v. Salazar | 675 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C., 2009) | 2009 WL 4981172 (D.D.C.) | In this case, the Plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals, Craig C. Downer, and Terri Farley, attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction that would stop the defendants, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and representatives of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (“the Bureau”), from implementing a plan to capture or gather approximately 2,700 wild horses located in western Nevada (“gather plan”). The plaintiffs contended that the gather plan had to be set aside pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., because the Bureau did not have the statutory authority to carry out the gather plan, and because the plan did not comply with the terms of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (“Wild Horse Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq. The Court denied the Plaintiffs request for an injunction. | Case |
| Christian v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. | 54 A.D.3d 707 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2008) | 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 06790, 2008 WL 4170162 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) |
This New York case consists of an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiffs appeal the granting of the motion of the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and the cross motion of the defendants Petco. The infant plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant Kenneth Coughlin at a Petco store. The court held that the evidence submitted established that the defendants were not aware that this dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior. |
Case |