United States

UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Young

Summary: <p> Some parasail operators brought an action against state officials challenging validity of a state law that banned&nbsp;parasailing in navigable waters. Defendants argued that the court's order should be reconsidered in light of an intervening change in federal law that they say allows for the seasonal parasailing ban.&nbsp; After vacation of summary judgment in favor of operators, 2005 WL 1910497, the state moved for relieve from final judgment.&nbsp; The District Court held that the federal law permitting Hawaii to enforce state laws regulating recreational vessels for purpose of conserving and managing humpback whales did not violate separation of powers doctrine, and&nbsp;federal law did not violate Equal Protection Clause. </p>

Some parasail operators brought an action against state officials challenging validity of a state law that banned parasailing in navigable waters. Defendants argued that the court's order should be reconsidered in light of an intervening change in federal law that they say allows for the seasonal parasailing ban.  After vacation of summary judgment in favor of operators, 2005 WL 1910497, the state moved for relieve from final judgment.  The District Court held that the federal law permitting Hawaii to enforce state laws regulating recreational vessels for purpose of conserving and managing humpback whales did not violate separation of powers doctrine, and federal law did not violate Equal Protection Clause.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers

Summary: <p> An environmental organization brought an action against United States Bureau of Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the&nbsp;Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that agencies failed to examine critical issues in biological opinions (BiOps) before executing water contracts for delivery of California Water Project water to irrigation and water districts. On a cross motion for summary judgment, the&nbsp;District Court held that the agencies failed to conduct adequate adverse modification analyses, failed to conduct adequate jeopardy analyses, and that the conduct of BOR in relying on the issued BiOps was arbitrary and capricious. </p>

An environmental organization brought an action against United States Bureau of Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that agencies failed to examine critical issues in biological opinions (BiOps) before executing water contracts for delivery of California Water Project water to irrigation and water districts. On a cross motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the agencies failed to conduct adequate adverse modification analyses, failed to conduct adequate jeopardy analyses, and that the conduct of BOR in relying on the issued BiOps was arbitrary and capricious.

Florida Marine Contractors v. Williams

Summary: <p> The Florida Marine Contractors Association applied for permits to build recreational docks on Florida's inland waterways.&nbsp; The permit requests were denied&nbsp;due to danger to the West Indian&nbsp;Manatees that live in the waterways.&nbsp; The Florida Marine Contractors Association&nbsp;challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's&nbsp;permit denials on the basis that the Marine Mammal Protection Act does not apply to residential docks.&nbsp; Summary judgment was granted in favor&nbsp;of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.&nbsp; </p>

The Florida Marine Contractors Association applied for permits to build recreational docks on Florida's inland waterways.  The permit requests were denied due to danger to the West Indian Manatees that live in the waterways.  The Florida Marine Contractors Association challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's permit denials on the basis that the Marine Mammal Protection Act does not apply to residential docks.  Summary judgment was granted in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

United States v. 144,774 Pounds Of Blue King Crab

Summary: <p> An importer of 144,774 pounds of cooked, frozen blue&nbsp;king crab was charged with violating the Lacey Act for taking the crab in violation of Russian fishing regulations.&nbsp; The crab is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act on a strict liability basis, but the importer asserted an "innocent owner" defense.&nbsp; The trial court denied the owner's defense and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning if the crab was illegally taken under Russian law then it is considered contraband for Lacey Act purposes regardless of its status under U.S. law. </p>

An importer of 144,774 pounds of cooked, frozen blue king crab was charged with violating the Lacey Act for taking the crab in violation of Russian fishing regulations.  The crab is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act on a strict liability basis, but the importer asserted an "innocent owner" defense.  The trial court denied the owner's defense and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning if the crab was illegally taken under Russian law then it is considered contraband for Lacey Act purposes regardless of its status under U.S. law.

Wall v. City of Brookfield

Summary: <p> A dog that was constantly in violation of local leash ordinances was held as a stray by the town.&nbsp; The owner of the dog brought a section 1983 action claiming deprivation of the dog's companionship without due process and the trial court held in favor of the town.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that only a post-deprivation hearing was necessary under the statute&nbsp;(which defendant could have received had she filed a petition with the court). </p>

A dog that was constantly in violation of local leash ordinances was held as a stray by the town.  The owner of the dog brought a section 1983 action claiming deprivation of the dog's companionship without due process and the trial court held in favor of the town.  The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that only a post-deprivation hearing was necessary under the statute (which defendant could have received had she filed a petition with the court).

Moore v. Garner

Summary: <p> Complaints were&nbsp;made against a plaintiff-couple about the poor conditions&nbsp;for over 100 dogs and other&nbsp;animals that were living in on the couple&rsquo;s farm. The couple who owned the farm&nbsp;failed to do anything about it and the animals were seized.&nbsp; Plaintiffs brought claims against sixty defendants (mainly Van Zandt County, Texas officials)&nbsp;for conspiracy and violations of the Hobbs Act, Animal Welfare Act, Animal Enterprise Protection Act, RICO, the Texas Constitution and other federal statutes.&nbsp; The trial court granted defendants' motion&nbsp;to dismiss and the&nbsp;District Court affirmed.&nbsp; </p>

Complaints were made against a plaintiff-couple about the poor conditions for over 100 dogs and other animals that were living in on the couple’s farm. The couple who owned the farm failed to do anything about it and the animals were seized.  Plaintiffs brought claims against sixty defendants (mainly Van Zandt County, Texas officials) for conspiracy and violations of the Hobbs Act, Animal Welfare Act, Animal Enterprise Protection Act, RICO, the Texas Constitution and other federal statutes.  The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the District Court affirmed. 

King v. CJM Country Stables

Summary: <p> Horseback rider was bitten during a trail ride and brought suit in personal injury.&nbsp; After removal to Federal Court, the Court held that Hawaii's recreational activity liability statute was applicable and that summary judgment was not appropriate.&nbsp; Motion for summary judgment denied. </p>

Horseback rider was bitten during a trail ride and brought suit in personal injury.  After removal to Federal Court, the Court held that Hawaii's recreational activity liability statute was applicable and that summary judgment was not appropriate.  Motion for summary judgment denied.

United States of America v. Hale

Summary: <p> A couple owned and operated a caviar business.&nbsp; They&nbsp;were convicted&nbsp;of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling&nbsp;paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.&nbsp; <strong> This Judgment was Vacated by <a href="/cases/causfd545us1112.htm"> <em> Hale v. U.S </em> ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005). </a> </strong> </p>

A couple owned and operated a caviar business.  They were convicted of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.  This Judgment was Vacated by Hale v. U.S ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005).

United States v. March

Summary: <p> Defendant violated the Lacey Act by presenting false information to gain a hunting permit.&nbsp; He was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Idaho.&nbsp; The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision holding the District Court and Tribal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Indians for violations of the Lacey Act. </p>

Defendant violated the Lacey Act by presenting false information to gain a hunting permit.  He was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision holding the District Court and Tribal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Indians for violations of the Lacey Act.

Earth Island Institute v. Evans

Summary: <p> The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.&nbsp; Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant.&nbsp; The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside. </p>

The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.  Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant.  The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside.