Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hill v. Norton | 275 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2001) | 53 ERC 2038, 348 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,437 (2001) |
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712 (2000), extends protection to all birds covered by four migratory bird treaties, which, in relevant part, define migratory birds to include the family Anatidae (which includes the mute swan). Under the authority, delegated by Congress the Secretary of the Interior has published lists of protected migratory birds. The instant case arose when appellant Joyce Hill filed a law suit pro se in District Court claiming that the Secretary's regulation violated the MBTA in excluding mute swans from the List of Migratory Birds promulgated at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13 (2000). The District Court rejected Hill's claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. In reversing the the District Court's decision, the court found that the Secretary pointed to nothing in the statute, applicable treaties, or administrative record that justified the exclusion of mute swans from the List of Migratory Birds. It also ordered the Secretary's List of Migratory Birds, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13, insofar as the list excludes mute swans, to be vacated. This case more or less set the stage for the revisions to the MBTA in 2004 by Congress's passing of the MBTRA. |
Case | |
| TX - Veterinary - Chapter 801. Veterinarians. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 801.001 - 557 | TX OCC § 801.001 - 557 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| Friedli v. Kerr | 2001 WL 177184 (Tenn. 2001) |
This case involves two passengers who were injured when the horse-drawn carriage that they were riding in turned over after the horse was startled and the driver lost control of the horse. The trial court held, and the court of appeals affirmed, that the defendant’s carriage business was not immune from liability to its passengers under Tennessee’s equine liability statute. There were three reasons for this decision: 1) the defendant is not an “equine activity sponsor,” 2) his business is not an “equine activity,” and 3) the plaintiffs were not “participants” engaging in an “equine activity” when they were injured. |
Case | ||
| Black v. Coughlin | 76 F.3d 72 (2nd Cir. 1996) |
Prisoner brought action under § 1983 against commissioner of state department of correctional services to recover damages for punishment imposed as a result of improperly conducted disciplinary hearing. |
Case | ||
| NC - Exotic Pets - .0212 Importation Requirements: WIild Animals | 2 NC ADC 52B.0212 | 2 NCAC 52B.0212 | This North Carolina regulation states that person must obtain a permit from the State Veterinarian before importing any of the following animals into this State: skunk; fox; raccoon; ringtail; bobcat (includes lynx and other North and South American felines as cougars, jaguars, etc.); coyote; marten; brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Permits for the importation into this State of any of these animals shall be issued only if the animal(s) will be used in a research institute, or for exhibition by a USDA licensed exhibitor, or organized entertainment as in zoos or circuses. Any species or hybrid of a mammal not otherwise covered in the Administrative Code that is found to exist in the wild or naturally occurs in the wild must be accompanied by a valid certificate of veterinary inspection. | Administrative | |
| Majors v. Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb Georgia | 652 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1981) |
Tenant had a history of mental illness and kept a dog in her apartment despite a "no pets" policy. The housing authority refused to waive the "no pets" policy and brought an eviction proceeding. Tenant filed a complaint in federal district court alleging violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to waive the "no pets" policy as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The district court granted the housing authority's motion for summary judgment and the tenant appealed. The court of appeals held that the housing authority deprived the tenant of the benefits of the housing program by enforcing the no pets rule, reasoning that waiving the no pets rule would allow the tenant to fully enjoy the benefits of the program and would place no undue burdens on the housing authority. |
Case | ||
| CA - Education - Chapter 2.3. Pupils' Rights to Refrain from the Harmful or Destructive Use of Animals | West's Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 32255 - 32255.6 | CA EDUC § 32255 - 32255.6 | This California chapter of laws concerns students refraining from engaging in animal dissection in education institutions. Under Section 32255.1, any pupil (defined as under age 18) with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, shall notify his or her teacher regarding this objection. If the pupil refrains from such participation, he or she and the teacher may work to develop an alternate education project. The pupil shall not be discriminated against based upon his or her decision to exercise his or her rights pursuant to this chapter. A pupil's objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section shall be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian. | Statute | |
| WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I | West's RCWA 77.15.790, 792 | WA ST 77.15.790, 792 | These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. | Statute | |
| PA - Dangerous - § 459-507-A. Construction of article (dangerous dogs) | 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | This Pennsylvania statute provides the construction of the dangerous dog chapter in the state. It outlines the exceptions under the dangerous dog law as well as the enforcement procedure for one who is attacked by such dog. It also specifically states that any provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. Further, a local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog. | Statute | |
| US - Livestock - Ante-Mortem Inspection of Disabled Animals and Other Animals Unable to Move on | 1990 WL 346631 (F.R.) | RIN 0583-AA98 |
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to allow ante-mortem inspection of disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, while the animals are still on a transport vehicle, if requested by the official establishment. Currently, the ante-mortem inspection of such animals may only be performed in designated, covered ante-mortem pens on the premises of an official establishment. This proposal is intended to reduce the inhumane handling that may result when disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, are transferred from transport vehicles to the designated, covered ante-mortem pens for ante-mortem inspection. |
Administrative |