Posts Tagged ‘endangered species’

October 10 roundup

June 16 roundup

  • Legal hazards of beachcombing: “Keeping bald eagle feather could result in a $100,000 fine and year in prison” [BoingBoing; our Sept. 1999 post]
  • “E.U. Condemns America’s Online Gambling Crackdown” [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”]
  • Much-loved Stockton, Calif. eatery Chuck’s Hamburgers is menaced by ADA serial litigator, and friends rally to save it [Stockton Record, 4000-member Facebook group]
  • Doomed AF Flight 447 had multiple connections with France (airline, aircraft maker) and Brazil (takeoff, many passengers’ nationality), so of course some American lawyers are hoping to get resulting suits heard in U.S. courts [Bloomberg]
  • Sure takes a lot of lawyering to bring a movie like “Bruno” to the screen [Althouse, WSJ Law Blog, Legal Ethics Forum]
  • Form vs. substance: U.K. historic-preservation edict saves increasingly impractical Victorian bell frames, at expense of 650-year-old bell ringing tradition [Telegraph via Never Yet Melted]
  • All in a day’s (double) work: take city retirement or even disability, then come back in second job [Al Tompkins, Lowell (Mass.) Sun]
  • Can it be? In just about another two weeks your favorite source of legal consternation will turn ten years old [nine years and eleven months or so ago on Overlawyered]

May 18 roundup

  • Historic preservation and habitat preservation laws can backfire in similar ways [Dubner, Freakonomics]
  • Serious points about wacky warnings [Bob Dorigo Jones, Detroit News]
  • Texas solons consider lengthening statute of limitations to save Yearning for Zion prosecutions [The Common Room]
  • A call for law bloggers to unite against content-swiping site [Scott Greenfield]
  • Drawbacks of CFC-free pulmonary inhalers leave asthma sufferers gasping [McArdle, Atlantic]
  • Try, try again: yet another academic proposal for charging gunmakers with costs of crime [Eggen/Culhane, SSRN, via Robinette/TortsProf] More/correction: not a new paper, just new to SSRN; see comments.
  • California businesses paid $17 million last year in bounty-hunting suits under Prop 65 [Cal Biz Lit]
  • Trial lawyer lobby AAJ puts out all-points bulletin to members: send us your horror stories so we can parade ’em in the media! [ShopFloor]

“Ringling Bros. Elephant Trial Promises to Be a Circus”

“After more than eight years of litigation, lawyers for Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will appear in federal court this week to square off against a handful of animal welfare organizations that have filed suit against the circus alleging that it routinely violates federal law by abusing its elephants. The case is a major test for the reach of the Endangered Species Act, which for the first time is being used by private citizens to try to influence the care of animals already in captivity.” If the complainants, led by the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), succeed in the creative effort to reshape the Endangered Species Act into a federal animal welfare statute, lawsuits in other areas are likely to follow [Legal Times]

Snapping goose causes slip-fall, the sequel

Last year we covered the unsuccessful suit against Contemporary Watercrafters, a Rockville, Md.-based pool maintenance business. It’s getting some more attention now as one of the entries in the U.S. Chamber’s Faces of Lawsuit Abuse campaign (careful, it auto-plays video with sound). Angle we didn’t mention in our earlier post: the owner was annoyed at the mess made by the geese and approached the Humane Society about removal but was told “it was a no-go — the Migratory Species Act forbade him from moving or disturbing the geese. All he could do was wait for their goslings to hatch and hope they then moved on of their own free will. The store put up tape around the area and signs warning passersby of the terrible geese threat.” (On the Record (Md. Daily Record blog), Dec. 9).

August 20 roundup

August 27 roundup

Update: Potemkin species in Sebastopol

Readers may recall the brouhaha last year when a federally protected plant, the Sebastopol meadowfoam, was discovered growing on the grounds of a controversial proposed housing development in the Northern California community; state wildlife officials investigated and said it was apparently planted on purpose. (May 25, 2005). Now the plant has sprung up again on the site, and although opponents of the project have seized on the news, the developer says it’s just a result of the germination of seeds from the earlier illicit plantation. (Terence Chea, “Trouble in bloom at Calif. development site”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 17).