United States

Monell v. Department of Social Services

Summary: <p> Female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the City of New York brought an action challenging the policies of those bodies in requiring pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before those leaves were required for medical reasons.&nbsp; The decision of this case addresses issues of immunity. </p>

Female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the City of New York brought an action challenging the policies of those bodies in requiring pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before those leaves were required for medical reasons.  The decision of this case addresses issues of immunity.

Committee for Humane Legislation v. Richardson

Summary: <p> At issue in this case are the statutory limitations on the authority&nbsp;of the Secretary of Commerce to adopt regulations, pursuant to the&nbsp;MMPA, that provide for the issuance of permits for&nbsp;the "taking" of&nbsp;dolphins incidental to commercial fishing activities. </p>

At issue in this case are the statutory limitations on the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to adopt regulations, pursuant to the MMPA, that provide for the issuance of permits for the "taking" of dolphins incidental to commercial fishing activities.

U.S. v. Hetzel

Summary: <p> Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve.&nbsp; He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function.&nbsp; The court&nbsp;reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent.&nbsp; The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent.&nbsp; For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see&nbsp; <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve.  He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function.  The court reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent.  The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent.  For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see  Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Anderson v. Evans

Summary: <p> Advocacy groups challenged governments approval of quota for whale hunting by the Makah Indian Tribe.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals held that in granting the quota, the government violated the NEPA by failing to prepare an impact statement, and, that the MMPA applied to the tribe's whale hunt.&nbsp; REVERSED. </p>

Advocacy groups challenged governments approval of quota for whale hunting by the Makah Indian Tribe.  The Court of Appeals held that in granting the quota, the government violated the NEPA by failing to prepare an impact statement, and, that the MMPA applied to the tribe's whale hunt.  REVERSED.

Fuller v. Vines

Summary: <p> Motion for leave to amend &sect; 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. </p>

Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun.

Kohola v. National Marine Fisheries Service

Summary: <p> Environmental groups challenged the NMFS's use of data in its classification of the Hawaii longline fishery as a "category III" fishery.&nbsp; Held:&nbsp; the NMFS has discretion to consider reliability of only available scientific data in classifying fishery. </p>

Environmental groups challenged the NMFS's use of data in its classification of the Hawaii longline fishery as a "category III" fishery.  Held:  the NMFS has discretion to consider reliability of only available scientific data in classifying fishery.

Anderson v. Evans

Summary: <p> Concerned citizens and animal conservation groups brought an action against United States government, challenging the government's approval of quota for whale hunting by Makah Indian Tribe located in Washington state.&nbsp; On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals held that the failure of the government to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before approving a whale quota for the Makah Tribe violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).&nbsp; The court also found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applied to tribe's proposed whale hunt, as the proposed whale takings were not excluded by the treaty with the tribe. </p>

Concerned citizens and animal conservation groups brought an action against United States government, challenging the government's approval of quota for whale hunting by Makah Indian Tribe located in Washington state.  On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals held that the failure of the government to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before approving a whale quota for the Makah Tribe violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The court also found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applied to tribe's proposed whale hunt, as the proposed whale takings were not excluded by the treaty with the tribe.

United States v. Kum

Summary: <p> Defendant convicted for conspiracy to smuggle endangered wildlife into the United States.&nbsp; Government moved for upward departure from sentencing range.&nbsp; Held:&nbsp; Court would not depart upward to reflect cruel treatment of animals (other holdings generally unrelated). </p>

Defendant convicted for conspiracy to smuggle endangered wildlife into the United States.  Government moved for upward departure from sentencing range.  Held:  Court would not depart upward to reflect cruel treatment of animals (other holdings generally unrelated).

In the Matter of: Akiko Kawahara, Respondent

Summary: <p> The principle issue in this case is whether the planned stopover of a few hours in Kennedy Airport in New York constitutes an "importation" within the meaning of the MMPA.&nbsp; The respondent in this case was employed by a business dealing in the international trade of animals and was&nbsp;attempting to bring four dolphins captured off the coast of Argentina&nbsp;back to Japan.&nbsp; The respondent&nbsp;only&nbsp;landed the dolphins&nbsp;in New York as a stopover on their way to Tokyo, but the court found that there was no requirement of knowledge or specific intent under the MMPA to constitute civil violations. </p>

The principle issue in this case is whether the planned stopover of a few hours in Kennedy Airport in New York constitutes an "importation" within the meaning of the MMPA.  The respondent in this case was employed by a business dealing in the international trade of animals and was attempting to bring four dolphins captured off the coast of Argentina back to Japan.  The respondent only landed the dolphins in New York as a stopover on their way to Tokyo, but the court found that there was no requirement of knowledge or specific intent under the MMPA to constitute civil violations.

In the Matter of: Darcy Lynn Shawyer

Summary: <p> This case&nbsp;is&nbsp;a civil penalty proceeding under the MMPA for the unlawful importation of&nbsp;eight bottlenose porpoises into the United States.&nbsp; In this case, the court found that specific intent is not required for importation under the MMPA.&nbsp;The court found that the route taken over the United States, the requirement to land for customs clearance purposes, or weather conditions was known or should have been foreseeable to all parties.&nbsp; </p>

This case is a civil penalty proceeding under the MMPA for the unlawful importation of eight bottlenose porpoises into the United States.  In this case, the court found that specific intent is not required for importation under the MMPA. The court found that the route taken over the United States, the requirement to land for customs clearance purposes, or weather conditions was known or should have been foreseeable to all parties.