United States
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| United States v. Sandia |
|
| United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney | This case considers whether student housing at the University of Nebraska–Kearney (UNK) is a “dwelling” within the meaning of the FHA. The plaintiff had a service dog (or therapy dog as the court describes it) trained to respond to her anxiety attacks. When she enrolled and signed a lease for student housing (an apartment-style residence about a mile off-campus), her requests to have her service dog were denied, citing UNK's "no pets" policy for student housing. The United States, on behalf of plaintiff, filed this suit alleging that UNK's actions violated the FHA. UNK brought a motion for summary judgment alleging that UNK's student housing is not a "dwelling" covered by the FHA. Specifically, UNK argues that students are "transient visitors" and the student housing is not residential like other temporary housing (migrant housing, halfway houses, etc.) and more akin to jail. However, this court was not convinced, finding that "UNK's student housing facilities are clearly 'dwellings' within the meaning of the FHA." |
| United States v. Wallen | Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawfully killing three grizzly bears in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The killing of the bears occurred on May 27, 2014 at defendant's residence in Ferndale, Montana ("bear country" as the court described). In the morning, defendant discovered bears had killed over half of his chickens maintained in a coop. Later that evening, the bears returned, heading toward the coop. Defendant's children, who were playing outside at the time, headed inside and defendant proceeded to scare the bears away with his truck. Later that night, the bears returned and were shot by defendant. According to testimony by enforcement officers, defendant gave two different accounts of what happened that night. Ultimately, defendant was charged for killing the bears in violation of the ESA and convicted by a magistrate judge after raising an unsuccessful self-defense argument. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) he should have been tried by a jury; (2) the magistrate judge did not correctly identify the elements of his offense, and that error was not harmless; and (3) the case should be remanded for a trial by jury in the interest of justice. With regard to (1), that he was entitled to a jury trial because the offense was serious, rather than petty, the appellate court rejected the argument. The possibility of a five-year probation term and $15,000 restitution did not transform the crime, which had a maximum 6-month imprisonment, into a serious offense. On the second and third arguments, the court agreed that magistrate erroneously relied on a self-defense provision from a federal assault case that required the "good faith belief" to be objectively reasonable. The court held that the "good faith" requirement for § 1540(b)(3) should be based on a defendant's subjective state of mind. Then, the ultimate question becomes whether that subjective good faith belief was reasonably held in good faith. Said the Court, "[u]nder the Endangered Species Act, the reasonableness of a belief that an endangered animal posed a threat is likewise strong evidence of whether the defendant actually held that belief in good faith." As a result, the appellate court found the error by the magistrate in rejecting defendant's self-defense claim was not harmless. As to whether defendant is entitled to a jury trial on remand, the court found that the outcome of the prior proceedings conducted by a magistrate do not constitute a showing of bias or partiality. Thus, he is not entitled to trial by jury. The conviction was vacated and proceedings remanded. |
| University Towers Associates v. Gibson |
In this New York case, the petitioner, University Towers Associates commenced this holdover proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant of record and various undertenants based on an alleged nuisance where the tenants allegedly harbored pit bulls. According to petitioner, the pit bull is an alleged “known dangerous animal” whose presence at the premises creates an threat. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that the landlord's notice of termination did not adequately apprise the tenant of basis for termination; further, the notice of termination and the petition in the holdover proceeding did not allege objectionable conduct over time by the tenant as was required to establish nuisance sufficient to warrant a termination of tenancy. |
| US - Agriculture - Animal Damage Control Act | Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, (46 Stat. 1468) provided broad authority for investigation, demonstrations and control of mammalian predators, rodents and birds. Public Law 99-19, approved December 19, 1985, (99 Stat 1185) transferred administration of the Act from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. Pub. L. 102-190(Div. A, title III, Sec. 348, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1348) and P.L. 102-237 (Title X, Sec. 1013(d), 105 Stat. 1901, Dec. 13, 1991) added provisions directing the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture, respectively, to take actions to prevent the introduction of brown tree snakes into other areas of the U.S. from Guam. |
| US - Air travel, disability - § 41705. Discrimination against handicapped individuals | The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) was enacted in 1986. The law prohibits discrimination by commercial airlines on the basis of disability. An individual is considered "disabled" if he or she (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.; (2) l has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. This law requires that each complaint under this section are investigated and those data reviewed/reported. Regulations promulgated under the ACAA in 2008 set forth requirements for service brought animals aboard commercial flights. |
| US - Air travel, service animals - Guidance Concerning the Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United Kingdom |
|
| US - Air travel, service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel (proposed rules) |
|
| US - Air travel, service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability, Technical Assistance Manual |
|
| US - Air travel, service animals - Subpart H. Services on Aircraft. | Note: two of these sections were removed and reserved in 2020, effectively removing provisions related to service animals. Prior to it being removed, it previously stated that carriers must permit service animals to accompany passengers with disabilities. A carrier must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger with a disability at any seat in which the passenger sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area. The Department of Transportation used to allow identification of a service animal by the presence of harnesses, tags, or "the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal." A carrier is was never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders). |