Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Law Volume 14 Part 2 Index |
|
Policy | |||
| Barger v. Jimerson | 276 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1954) | 130 Colo. 459 (1954) |
In order for liability to attach in an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from a dog attack, defendants had to have notice of the vicious propensities of their dog. Even though the dog had never attacked a person before, a natural fierceness or disposition to mischief was sufficient to classify the dog as "vicious." Finally, it is permissible for the jury to consider the loss of earning capacity of plaintiff resulting from the injuries as an element of damages. |
Case | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Western Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf From th | 2003 WL 1697399 (F.R.) | RIN 1018-AJ04 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to remove the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and western United States where it is presently listed. If this proposal is finalized, the gray wolf would be delisted in the Western Gray Wolf DPS, existing special regulations established under section 4(d) of the Act for the Western DPS would be abolished, the nonessential experimental designations for reintroduced gray wolves would be removed, and future management of this species would be conducted by the appropriate State and tribal wildlife agencies. |
Administrative | |
| VT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 44. Veterinary Medicine. | 26 V.S.A. § 2401 - 2433 | VT ST T. 26 § 2401- 2433 | 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 | |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Dep't of Agric. & Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. | 918 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019) | 2019 WL 1212181 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019) | The plaintiffs, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, sought documents from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), the entity within the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) that administers the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”). The USDA took a large amount of documents off of its website relating to AWA compliance. The USDA claimed that the removal was for the purpose of removing certain personal information and although they did not say that the removal was temporary, the agency described the removal as provisional which suggests that it is temporary in nature. The plaintiffs filed suit asking for declaratory and injunctive relief and invoking a provision known as FOIA’s reading room provision (5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(2)). The provision requires that agencies make available for public inspection in an electronic format five categories of documents. The plaintiffs allege that the agency removed (1) research facility annual reports; (2) inspection reports; (3) lists of entities licensed under the AWA; and (4) regulatory correspondence and enforcement records that had not yet received final adjudication. Category 4 and the portion of category 2 consisting of animal inventories were dismissed and not discussed in this case. Categories 1-3 appeared to be reposted by the agency which is why the district court dismissed them as moot. The appeal centers on the reposted records and the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims by the district court. Ultimately the Court held that for the reposted records featuring new redactions, the complaint was most plausibly read as requesting that USDA repost all information that those records contained before their takedown. The Court stated that the district court should proceed to the merits on remand. As to “voluntary cessation,” the Court affirmed the mootness dismissal as to the research reports but remanded for further explanation as to the inspection reports and the entity lists. If the agency unambiguously commits to continued posting of those documents, plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as moot, without discovery, even if USDA continues to regard its postings as voluntary. | Case | |
| Germany - Cruelty - German Animal Welfare Act | Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1094 |
This is the primary piece of animal welfare legislation in Germany. It enforces the utilitarian principle that there must be good reason for one to cause an animal harm and identifies that it is the responsibility of human beings to protect the lives and well-being of their fellow creatures. For a discussion on the German Animal Welfare Act as compared to other European and United States animal welfare laws, see Detailed Discussion. |
Statute | ||
| MD - Vehicles, unattended animals - § 21-1101. Unattended vehicle requirements | MD Code, Transportation, § 21-1101 | This Maryland law relates to unattended vehicles (i.e., a person must not leave a running motor vehicle unattended). When a cat or dog is left in the unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal control officer, the provisions of that subsection do not apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer. | Statute | ||
| RI - Pawtucket - Breed - § 116-37. Registration of Rottweilers required; § 116-37.1 Pit bulls prohibited | PAWTUCKET, R.I., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 116-37; § 116-37.1 (2003) |
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull dog. Exceptions are made for animal shelters, dog shows, and dogs that have been previously registered and licensed. In the last case, the owner must be at least 21 years of age, keep liability insurance of at least $100,000, have the dog sterilized, keep the dog properly confined, and post a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. A violation may result in a fine ($500 - $1,000) and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The dog may also be impounded and/or destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources | 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981) |
The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act. |
Case | ||
| TN - Hunting - Part 3. Hunter Protection Act. | T. C. A. § 70-4-301 - 303 | TN ST § 70-4-301 - 303 | This section represents Tennessee's "Hunter Protection Act." The law makes it a Class C misdemeanor to interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another with the intent to prevent the taking; disturb or engage in an activity that will tend to disturb a wild animal, with the intent to prevent the lawful taking; disturb a person engaged in lawful hunting with the intent to prevent the taking; enter or remain on land with intent to violate this section; fail to obey a peace officer's orders to desist from conduct in violation of this section; or use a drone with the intent to conduct video surveillance of private citizens who are lawfully hunting or fishing without obtaining the written consent of the persons being surveilled. A person affected by conduct in violation of this section may seek an injunction or recover damages, including punitive damages. | Statute |