Results
Displaying 6631 - 6638 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA - Pet Shop - Chapter 162. Care of Animals in Commercial Establishments. | I. C. A. § 162.1 to 25 | IA ST § 162.1 to 25 | The purpose of this chapter is to insure that all dogs and cats handled by boarding kennels, commercial kennels, commercial breeders, dealers, and public auctions are provided with humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals. | Statute | |
| O'MALLEY, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia | 785 S.E.2d 221 (Va.,2016) | 66 Va. App. 296 (Va., 2016) | The appellant, John Dixon O'Malley was not charged with or convicted of any crime. However, he was issued a summons to determine whether his dog was dangerous pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2–6540(A) and (B). The jury found O’Malley's dog to be dangerous under the Virginia Code due to attacking and injuring the dog of Randall Powell. O’Malley appealed the trial court decision to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The Court of Appeals concluded that they did not have jurisdiction over the appeal due to being a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court relied on Virginia Code § 17.1–406(A) which provides that the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction was limited to appeals from final criminal convictions. The Court of Appeals reasoned that no language in Code § 3.2–6540 characterized as criminal the proceeding to identify a canine as a dangerous dog. Therefore, the finding at the trial level that O’Malley's dog was dangerous was civil in nature. Because the finding was civil in nature, the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over O’Malley’s appeal and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Virginia. | Case | |
| MN - Lien, veterinay - Chapter 514. Liens Against Property. Agricultural Liens. | M. S. A. § 514.965 - 966 | MN ST § 514.965 - 966 | These Minnesota statutes relate to agricultural liens on livestock. Under these sections, an “agricultural lien” includes a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production input lien, and feeder's lien. In section 514.966 entitled, "Agricultural lien on livestock," a licensed veterinarian performing emergency veterinary services in the ordinary course of business that cost more than $25 for animals at the request of the owner or a person in possession of the animals has a lien on the animals for the value of the services. Additionally, a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production lien, or feeder's lien attaches to the livestock serviced by the agricultural lienholder, and products and proceeds thereof to the extent of the price or value of the service provided. To perfect the lien, a financing statement must be filed within the time periods established in the law. | Statute | |
| US - Eagles - Permits To Take Golden Eagle Nests | 1983 WL 169711 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 83-34401 (1983) |
Because of conflicts between preservation of golden eagle nests and resource development or recovery operations, particularly surface coal mining activities in the western States, Congress amended the Eagle Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations that permit the taking of golden eagle nests found on the site of those operations under certain circumstances. Under that authority, the Service amends its regulations under the Eagle Protection Act to permit the taking (i.e., collection, molestation, disturbance, or destruction) of golden eagle nests during resource development or recovery operations when the nests are inactive if the taking is compatible with the preservation of the area nesting population of golden eagles. Little or no long-term impact on area nesting populations of golden eagles is expected as a result of this action. |
Administrative | |
| US - Rhinoceros - Chapter 73. Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation. | 16 USC 5301 - 5306 | The purpose of the Act is to assist in the conservation of rhinoceros and tigers by supporting the conservation programs of nations whose activities affect rhinoceros and tiger populations, as well as those of the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Act also provides financial resources for those programs. | Statute | ||
| Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques | 869 A.2d 679 (Conn. 2005) | 88 Conn. App. 358 (2005) |
An environmental nonprofit organization sought an injunction to prevent a housing development from being constructed. The nonprofit organization claimed the development was in violation of the Connecticut Endangered Species Act because it would destroy the habitat of an endangered rattlesnake. The trial court held the development was lawful and the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Korn | 2010 WL 5110048 (D. Idaho Dec. 2010) | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d | The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) brought an administrative action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act in connection with Defendants' exotic animal exhibition activities. A judgment was entered for a civil penalty of $57,750 against each Defendant in the administrative action. Defendants have refused to pay, claiming that their due process rights were violated in the underlying administrative proceeding; the judgment, they argued, was therefore void and unenforceable. The United States filed this matter against Defendants seeking to enforce that judgment. Before this Court were the cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion was granted because the Court could not overlook Defendant's absence of any effort to follow up with the Hearing Clerk, considering the many avenues of communication available. There were also no disputed issues of material fact concerning service of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order, and provision of notice of Defendants' appeal rights. Moreover, this Court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider or otherwise vacate the Agency's final order. 7 U.S.C. § 2149(b) also permitted the institution of a civil action by the Attorney General to collect the penalty imposed and no other facts were presented disputing the validity of the administrative judgment imposing the civil penalty. | Case | |
| CA - Forfeiture - § 599aa. Seizure of fighting animals and birds, paraphernalia, etc.; affidavit of officer; custody of seized p | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599aa | CA PENAL § 599aa | This section provides for the seizure and forfeiture of all birds, animals, paraphernalia, and any other property which is used in the fighting of birds or animals, the training of birds or animals to fight, or to inflict pain or cruelty on fighting animals. The section outlines the procedures for seizure and forfeiture, including what is to be done with seized animals. | Statute |