Federal

Share |

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. 

U.S. v. Smith

Summary: <p> Defendant was convicted of possessing Bald Eagle feathers in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after receiving the feathers in the mail from a friend to complete a craft project.&nbsp; On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction, alleging that she did not&nbsp;possess the requisite knowledge and that the act itself&nbsp;was vague as to the level of intent, or <i> scienter </i> .&nbsp; The court affirmed defendant's conviction finding that the evidence established that defendant knowingly possessed eagle feathers in violation of MBTA, the conviction did not amount to punishment of wholly passive conduct contrary to defendant's suggestion, and that MBTA was not vague nor overbroad with regard to intent.&nbsp; For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the Eagle Act, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#mbta"> Detailed Discussion of the Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Defendant was convicted of possessing Bald Eagle feathers in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after receiving the feathers in the mail from a friend to complete a craft project.  On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction, alleging that she did not possess the requisite knowledge and that the act itself was vague as to the level of intent, or scienter .  The court affirmed defendant's conviction finding that the evidence established that defendant knowingly possessed eagle feathers in violation of MBTA, the conviction did not amount to punishment of wholly passive conduct contrary to defendant's suggestion, and that MBTA was not vague nor overbroad with regard to intent.  For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion of the Eagle Act .

U.S. v. Kornwolf

Summary: <p> Defendant sells&nbsp;a headdress containing golden eagle feathers obtained before&nbsp;1962&nbsp;to an undercover officer.&nbsp; Court finds this case directly controlled by <u> Andrus v. Allard </u> .&nbsp; Court reiterates prohibition on any eagle commerce.&nbsp; For further discussion on the restriction of commerce in eagle parts under the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#commerce"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Defendant sells a headdress containing golden eagle feathers obtained before 1962 to an undercover officer.  Court finds this case directly controlled by Andrus v. Allard .  Court reiterates prohibition on any eagle commerce.  For further discussion on the restriction of commerce in eagle parts under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp.

Summary: <p> Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet. </p>

Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet.

Dubner v.City and County of San Francisco

Summary: <p> Photographer brought &sect; 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest <a name="Document1zzSDUNumber2"> </a> photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity. </p>

Photographer brought § 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity.

United States v. Bowman

Summary: <p> This case involves a conspiracy charge to defraud a corporation in which the United States was&nbsp;a stockholder.&nbsp; The&nbsp;Fifth Circuit&nbsp;Court of Appeals&nbsp;in <u> United States v. Mitchell </u> referred to this Supreme Court case when it found that the nature of the MMPA does not compel its application to foreign territories. </p>

This case involves a conspiracy charge to defraud a corporation in which the United States was a stockholder.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Mitchell referred to this Supreme Court case when it found that the nature of the MMPA does not compel its application to foreign territories.

United States v. Hardman

Summary: <p> This is an order vacating the opinions issued in <u> Wilgus </u> , <u> Saenz </u> , and <u> Hardman </u> .&nbsp; The Tenth Circuit requested the attorneys in the above cases to brief the issues outlined by the court.&nbsp; For further discussion regarding religious challenges to the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#religious"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

This is an order vacating the opinions issued in Wilgus , Saenz , and Hardman .  The Tenth Circuit requested the attorneys in the above cases to brief the issues outlined by the court.  For further discussion regarding religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Share |