Federal

Summary: <p> Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act after it created a regulation that prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of birds that would be used in fighting ventures. <span> &nbsp; </span> She argued that the regulators did not consider whether fighting ventures were legal in the state where the birds were being transported to. <span> &nbsp; </span> However, the regulation was considered constitutional since under terms of section 2156(b), only the foreign and interstate transport of the birds was prohibited. <span> &nbsp; </span> </p>

Summary: <p> A farmer was neglecting her horses&nbsp;and the entire herd confiscated by animal control officers.&nbsp; The farmer brought a section 1983 claim&nbsp;against the&nbsp;animal control officers for acting outside of the scope of their warrant by removing more than just the sick horses.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court&nbsp;in part, holding the animal control officers were entitled to qualified immunity and seizure of all the&nbsp;horses was not unreasonable or&nbsp;outside the scope of the warrant.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. &sect; 1983, Defendants-Appellants, seven San Jose City Police Officers&nbsp;and Deputy Sheriff Linderman, appeal from an order of the district court denying in part their motions for qualified immunity. This action arises out of the simultaneous execution of search warrants at the residences of members of the Hells Angels, and at the Hells Angels clubhouse on January 21, 1998. While executing&nbsp;search warrants at two plaintiffs' residences, the officers shot a total of three dogs.&nbsp;This court held that the shooting of the dogs at the Vieira and Souza residences was an unreasonable seizure, and an unreasonable execution of the search warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Exigent circumstances did not exist at either residence, as the&nbsp;officers had a week to consider the options and tactics available for an encounter with the dogs.&nbsp;The unlawfulness of the officers' conduct would have been apparent to a reasonable officer at the time the officers planned for serving the search warrants. </p>

Summary: <div> A group of animal preservationists filed suit to enjoin deer hunting on a Massachusetts&nbsp;reservation because it contended that the activity posed such&nbsp;a risk to bald eagles so as to constitute a prohibited &ldquo;taking&rdquo; under the ESA. The essence of the plaintiff's argument was that some of the deer shot by hunters would not be recovered and then eagles would consume these deer thereby ingesting the harmful lead slugs from the ammunition. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, ruling that appellants failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. On appeal of the denial for&nbsp;injunction, this Court held that plaintiff failed to meet the showing of actual harm under the ESA. There was no showing in the record of harm to any bald eagles during the deer hunt of 1991 and the record fully supported the trial&nbsp;judge's conclusion. </div>

Summary: <p> The breeder was in the business of buying, breeding, raising, and selling of exotic and wild animals. The town passed an ordinance making it unlawful to keep certain wild animals, and the breeder filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a local ordinance.&nbsp; On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the town because: (1) the ordinance was not preempted by the Animal Welfare Act; (2) the ordinance was not an impermissible attempt to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; and (3) the town did not deprive him of his property interest in his federal and state licenses without due process. </p>

Summary: <p> In this order, the court held that Respondent shall cease and desist from transporting live animals in primary enclosures which are not sufficiently large to insure that each animal contained therein has sufficient space to turn about freely in a standing position using normal body movement, to stand and sit erect, and to lie in a natural position, which spatial requirements are contained in the regulations issued pursuant to the Act. (9 CFR 3.12(c)). </p>

Summary: <p> A veterinary student was kicked by a cow while trying to perform a medical procedure.&nbsp; The student brought a personal injury lawsuit against the professor and university for negligently allowing the university-owned cow to kick her and not providing timely medical treatment.&nbsp; Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. </p>

Summary: <p> Eight Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to allow Nebraska Beef to pursue a <em> Bivens </em> remedy --remedy allows&nbsp;a party to recover damages when federal officials violate a person's constitutional rights when Congress has not provided an adequate remedy-- after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) allegedly breached a mutual consent decision agreed upon after the USDA issued <span id="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay"> Noncompliance Records for perceived regulatory violations. </span> </p>

Summary: <p> A woman was housing hundreds of animals in her residential home, the animals were seized and more than two hundred of them were euthanized.&nbsp; The woman brought a section 1983 claim against the county sheriff's department and human society.&nbsp; The trial court granted defendants summary judgment and the&nbsp;Court of Appeals affirmed holding&nbsp;no&nbsp;viable&nbsp;due process claim existed&nbsp;arising from the euthanization.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: Plaintiff employee brought a suit of discrimination against the Albuquerque Rio Grande Zoo under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(4) and 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 2000e et seq.