Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Dogs at Large - Subpart D. Impoundment Procedures. § 28.43 Destruction of dogs and cats. | 41 FR 9171 | 50 C.F.R. § 28.43 | This federal rule states that dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and observed by an authorized official in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. | Administrative | |
| State v. Crosswhite | 273 Or. App. 605 (2015) | 2015 WL 5439355 (Or. Ct. App., 2015) | After being tipped off about a dog fight, authorities seized several dogs from a home. Defendant was charged with one count of second-degree animal abuse and four counts of second-degree animal neglect. After the presentation of the state's evidence in circuit court, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, arguing, as to second-degree animal neglect, that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant had custody or control over the dogs. Circuit court denied the motion and defendant was convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed the denial of the motion, again arguing that the state failed to prove that he had “custody or control” over the dogs. The appeals court concluded that the plain text and context of ORS 167.325(1), together with the legislature's use of the same term in a similar statute, demonstrated that the legislature intended the term “control” to include someone who had the authority to guide or manage an animal or who directed or restrained the animal, regardless if the person owned the animal. Given the facts of the case, the court concluded that based on that evidence, a reasonable juror could find that defendant had control over the dogs, and the trial court had not erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. | Case | |
| CITES - List of Reservations |
Specific reservations entered by Parties in effect from 14 September 2014
|
Treaty | |||
| Nigeria - Endangered Species - Endangered Species Act (in English) | Decree No. 11 of 1985 | The hunting or capture of or trade in animal species listed in the First Schedule to this Act is absolutely prohibited. Furthermore, no person shall hunt, capture, trade in or otherwise deal with an animal species specified in the Second Schedule to this Act except if that person is in possession of a license issued under this Act. The act also sets out the conditions of licenses and permits. The Minister may by an order publish in the Federal Gazette alter the list of animals specified in the First or Second Schedule to this Act by way of addition, substitution or deletion or otherwise. Penalties for violations are also provided. | Statute | ||
| Ecuador - Environmental - Decreto Ejecutivo 752 | Regulations to the Code of the Environment | Decreto 752 regulates the environment code. It comprises seven books that regulate each of the books in the Environmental Code regulating topics such as natural heritage, environmental quality, climate change, the coastal marine zone, environmental incentives, etc. These books contain chapters, sections, and provisions concerning wildlife, urban fauna, protected areas, production, and sustainable use, etc. This regulation establishes that all wildlife species are protected by the government, and gives special priority to native, endemic, threatened, and migratory species. It prohibits the commercial trade of wildlife from being used as pets without authorization; the commercial trade of native, endemic, threatened, and migratory wildlife species directly taken from their natural habitat; and other prohibitions that the environmental authority may establish. This executive decree also regulates the application of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Chapter V, articles 106-121. | Statute | ||
| US - Grazing - Taylor Grazing Act | 43 USC 315 - 315r | Statute empowers Secretary of the Interior to establish and oversee grazing districts on federal land via a system of permits. | Statute | ||
| AR - Domestic Violence - Chapter 15. Domestic Abuse | ACA §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | AR ST §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | Upon a finding of domestic abuse, a court may "[d]irect the care, custody, or control of any pet. owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party residing in the household" in an order for protection filed by a petitioner. Arkansas also defines emotional abuse to include harming a spouse's pet in its Spousal Safety Plan Act; emotional abuse, if committed by a spouse against their spouse, also constitutes spousal abuse. | Statute | |
| Amons v. District of Columbia | 231 F. Supp 2d. 109 (D.D.C. 2002) | 2002 WL 31455095 (D.D.C.) |
Plaintiff filed a Section 1983 action against D.C. police officers alleging, inter alia , intentional infliction of emotional distress for the unprovoked shooting of his dog inside his home. The court found that the officers lacked probable cause for the warrantless entry into his home to make the arrest, the arresting officer made "an egregiously unlawful arrest," and the officers were unreasonable in shooting plaintiff's dog without provocation. |
Case | |
| Mogensen v. Welch | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2023) | 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D.Va., 2023) | Plaintiffs owned and operated a zoo containing about 95 animals. Following complaints about suspected abuse and neglect of these animals, defendant executed a search warrant of the zoo. The search led to the seizure of many of these animals, including a tiger in such poor health that it needed to be euthanized. Following the seizure of these animals, plaintiffs filed a motion to argue that their due process rights were violated because a civil forfeiture hearing must be held no more than ten business days after the state seized the animals, and plaintiffs argue that ten days is too little time to prepare for the hearing. To succeed on the claim, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which they were unable to do because plaintiffs still have the right to appeal if the hearing does not go in their favor. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| LA - Disaster Planning - State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan | State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan | Louisiana's Emergency Operations Plan addresses pets and service animals in several places. The parish office of homeland security and emergency preparedness must make an EOP that includes plans for animal sheltering: "The EOP must include planning for the humane evacuation, transport, and temporary sheltering of service animals and household pets in times of emergency or disaster. In preparing and revising the plan, the parish office of homeland security and emergency preparedness should embrace the “Whole Community” concept and seek the advice and assistance of government, business, labor, industry, agriculture, civic, and volunteer organizations." | Administrative |