Summary: This Louisiana regulation states that no person shall own, keep or have in his custody a dog, cat, or ferret over 3 months of age that has not been vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian
Summary: This Alaska regulation provides that a dog, cat, or ferret is required to be vaccinated for rabies in accordance with schedules in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011.
Summary: This Oregon case involves a dispute over who now owns a female whippet dog named "Isis." Isis was adopted from the local humane society and lived with the plaintiff and his family until 2014. In the summer of 2014, plaintiff asked his friend Rich to keep Isis while plaintiff moved to Florida. Both plaintiff and Rich understood that Rich was just caring for Isis and that plaintiff remained Isis' owner. Defendant is Rich's ex-girlfriend had a different understanding; that plaintiff had abandoned Isis and, as such, Isis became defendant's property. In 2016, plaintiff filed an action for replevin against defendant, seeking immediate return of Isis. Defendant countered with a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the dog was gifted to Rich - who subsequently abandoned the dog - and so defendant became the rightful owner. A bench trial ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff had gifted the dog or that Rich had abandoned the dog. On appeal, defendant raises a single procedural error, that the court erred by granting plaintiff replevin the procedures in ORCP 83 A were not followed. Notably, the court found that there was no ruling against defendant with regard to noncompliance of a court rule. More importantly, there was no challenge to the court's disposition of the declaratory judgement counterclaim. Thus, defendant presented no error in the disposition of her counterclaim. Accordingly, because the trial court declared plaintiff to be the lawful owner of Isis, and no one has challenged that declaration, the court did not reach defendant's arguments about the proper procedure for a replevin claim.
Summary: Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Club Gallistico) and the Asociacion Cultural y Deportiva del Gallo Fino de Pelea (Asociacion Cultural) both filed civil complaints against the United States Government. The complaints alleged that the Section 12616 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violated bedrock principles of federalism and rights protected under the United States Constitution. Both Club Gallistico and Asociacion Cultural are both non-profit organizations involved in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s cockfighting industry. The amendments to the AWA outlawed all animal fighting ventures in which animals were moved in interstate or foreign commerce in every United States jurisdiction. These amendments extended the ban to United States territories which the Plaintiffs argued the United States did not have the authority to do. Both cases were consolidated and heard by the District Court. The Court analyzed the amendments under the Federalism doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and the Territorial Clause. Extending the ban on live-bird fighting did not violate either of the three. Further, the amendments did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or any other constitutional rights such as free speech or due process. The Court ultimately denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granted Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Summary: Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Summary: This New Mexico law prohibits the importation, transportation, holding for breeding, releasing, or selling of a sell a live feral hog or the operation of a commercial feral hog hunting enterprise. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term of less than one year or both.
Summary: This New Mexico law states that a wild horse that is captured on public land shall have its conformation, history and deoxyribonucleic acid tested to determine if it is a Spanish colonial horse. If it is a Spanish colonial horse, the wild horse shall be relocated to a state or private wild horse preserve created and maintained for the purpose of protecting Spanish colonial horses. If it is not a Spanish colonial horse, it shall be returned to the public land, relocated to a public or private wild horse preserve or put up for adoption by the agency on whose land the wild horse was captured.
Summary: This New Mexico law states that the sale, purchase, trade and possession with intent to keep as a pet of any subhuman primate, skunk, raccoon, fox or other sylvatic carnivore may be regulated by regulation of the health and environment department [department of health] for the protection of public health and safety.
Summary: This New Mexico statute concerns tangible personal property of governing local and state agencies. Paragraph L deals with retired K-9 dogs. The section states, "[i]f the secretary of public safety finds that the K-9 dog presents no threat to public safety, the K-9 dog shall be released from public ownership as provided in this subsection. The K-9 dog shall first be offered to its trainer or handler free of charge. If the trainer or handler does not want to accept ownership of the K-9 dog, then the K-9 dog shall be offered to an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 free of charge. If both of the above fail, the K-9 dog shall only be sold to a qualified individual found capable of providing a good home to the animal."
Summary: This law relates to municipalities that do not have public pounds for the keeping of stray dogs or cats.Those municipalities may contract with nonproift humane societies or similar associations that have been operating for one or more years for the keeping and redemption of those animals.
