Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| environmental authorities operation to confiscate night monkeys from malaria labs | Slideshow Images | ||||
| TX - Dogs, rescue - Chapter 785. Search and Rescue Dogs | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 785.001 - .005 | Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 785.001 - .005 | This chapter of laws deals with search and rescue dogs and their handlers. All search and rescue dog handlers must be certified by the National Association for Search and Rescue or another state or nationally recognized search and rescue agency. This chapter of laws allows for search and rescue dogs and their handlers equal access to all public facilities. If any person denies access to a search and rescue dog or their handler, he or she will be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $300 or more than $1,000. If the search and rescue dog causes any damage while in the facility, the handler will be solely responsible. | Statute | |
| People v Beam | 624 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. 2000) | 244 Mich. App. 103 (2000) |
Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction under MCL 750.49, which punishes the owner of a dog trained or used for fighting that causes the death of a person, must be reversed because the statute is unconstitutionally vague; specifically, that the terms "trained or used for fighting," "without provocation," and "owner" are vague. The court disagreed and held that the statute is sufficiently clear and gives the defendant fair notice of the offense. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, | 234 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), review filed (Apr. 16, 2015) | 2015 WL 1004423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) | Plaintiff and respondent Animal Legal Defense Fund filed an action against defendants and appellants LT Napa Partners LLC and Kenneth Frank for unfair competition, alleging defendants sold foie gras in their Napa restaurant in violation of California law. Defendants moved to strike plaintiff's claim pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing it was exercising its free speech rights by protesting the law. Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of the motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision because the ALDF demonstrated probability of prevailing on the claim that it had standing under Unfair Competition Law (UCL); showed basis for liability against chef; and showed probability of prevailing on its claim that owner and chef unlawfully sold foie gras. | Case | |
| MA - Hunting - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 5C | MA ST 131 § 5C | This law reflects Massachusetts' hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. Acts prohibited include, but are not limited to, driving or disturbing wildlife, harassing another engaged in lawful taking of fish or wildlife, interjecting oneself into the line of fire, or erecting barriers to prevent access. A person may seek an injunction to prevent violation of this section and a person who sustains damages from any act in violation of the law may bring a civil action for punitive damages. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Doyle | 786 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1986) |
Doyle is a physician who lives in Texas and runs a bird rehabilitation center where he breeds captive falcons, hoping to reintroduce them. Here, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for violation of the Lacey Act making it unlawful for any person to possess and transport in interstate commerce any wildlife taken or transported in violation of any state law (Montana). Although defendant obtained proper state permits to possess and transfer described falcons, defendant was aware that the falcons' origins had been misrepresented; therefore, defendant has sufficient knowledge under the statute. |
Case | ||
| US - Conservation - Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act | 16 USC 2901 - 2912 | The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, approved September 29, 1980, authorizes financial and technical assistance to the States for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The original Act authorized $5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1982 through 1985, for grants for development and implementation of comprehensive State nongame fish and wildlife plans and for administration of the Act. It also required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study potential mechanisms for funding these activities and report to Congress by March 1984. | Statute | ||
| WY - Scientific permits - Chapter 33. Regulation Governing Issuance of Scientific Research | WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1 - 9 | WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1- 9 | The purpose of this regulation is to govern and regulate the issuance of permits to take, capture, handle, and transport Wyoming wildlife for scientific research, educational or special purposes. Such permits may be issued to persons, educational institutions, or governmental entities when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines the scientific research, educational, or special purposes are beneficial to wildlife, the department or the public. | Administrative | |
| American Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus | 317 F.3d 334 (C.A.D.C.,2003) | 55 ERC 1904, 354 U.S.App.D.C. 432 |
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Fund for Animals, and Thomas Rider sued Ringling Bros. and its owner, Feld Entertainment, Inc., claiming that Asian elephants are an endangered species and that the circus mistreated its elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The only question was whether, as the district court ruled in dismissing their complaint, plaintiffs (including a former elephant handler) lack standing under Article III of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the former elephant handler demonstrated present or imminent injury and established redressability where the elephant handler alleged enough to show that his injuries will likely be redressed if he is successful on the merits. |
Case | |
| Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer | 666 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009) | The barking of Scooby the dog, caught the attention of nearby neighbors, and the Plaintiff, Overlook Mutual Housing Corporation. Overlook established a no-pet rule for its residents with an exception for service animals. Scooby's owners (the Spencers) received a letter warning them to remove the dog from their home. In response, the Spencers obtained a letter which requested that Overlook make a reasonable accommodation for their daughter Lynsey, who needed a support dog to facilitate in her psychological treatment. Overlook did not grant the Spencer's request for accommodation and filed a Complaint against them. The Spencers then filed a counter claim and Overlook then moved for summary judgment. The court stated that pet policies have to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Based on the intent of the FHA to provide reasonable accommodation rather than public access like the ADA, HUD and the DOJ's recently revised regulations on the need for emotional support animals in HUD-assisted housing, and previous actions brought against housing providers that denied emotional support animals, this court concluded that emotional support animals can qualify as reasonable accommodations under the FHA. Further, the court held that they do not need to be individually trained like service animals. Overlook's motion for summary judgment was denied. | Case |