United States

Displaying 1231 - 1240 of 4878
Titlesort descending Summary
Eastep v. Veterinary Medical Examining Bd.


Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon.  The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent.
Eastern Band Cherokee - Animal Control - Sec. 19.1, Animal Control Department

This section of the Eastern Band Cherokee Code describes the purpose of the Tribe's Animal Control Department. The Eastern Band Cherokee Animal Control Code includes Sections 19.1 through 19.7. Each section addresses a different topic within the Tribe's animal control, ranging from administrative purposes to restrictions and regulations.
Eastern Band of Cherokee - Natural resources - Sec. 14-10.10- Cutting timber, removing rock, trapping animals

This statute is intended to preserve natural resources and protect wild animals from any trapping conducted without the knowledge of a property owner or the Tribe. The language provides for both land owner through a tribal assignment or lease, as well as lands that are reserved and used exclusively by the Tribe. The language also restricts any person, firm, or corporation from engaging in this conduct without consent and knowledge from the land owner and/or the Tribe.
Eckhart v. Department of Agriculture


A dog kennel operator acquired 30 dogs while under a revised notice to cease and desist operating a kennel and from buying dogs. The Commonwealth Court affirmed fines imposed by the Department of Agriculture, holding that the fines for violation of the dog law were not excessive or unreasonable; that fines for failure to comply with conditions of the revised notice were not unconstitutionally excessive or unreasonable; and that enforcement of orders by Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement pending appeal were not staid by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Eco-Terrorism in the Southern Ocean: A Dangerous Byproduct of the Tangled Web of International Whaling Conventions and Treaties Utilizing a research exception granted under the international moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission, Japanese whalers have been harvesting endangered whales in the Southern Ocean. The anti-whaling activist group, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, also operates in the Southern Ocean by locating Japanese whaling vessels in order to bring an immediate halt to all whaling activities, often employing violent tactics designed to injure whaling vessels and property. Sea Shepherd operates under an apparent mandate of the United Nations World Charter for Nature allowing individuals to “[i]mplement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment.” The multitude of vague international conventions and treaties governing the Southern Ocean have therefore created a tangled and confusing web of authority where both Japanese whalers and Sea Shepherd have arguable claims of operating under legitimate legal mandates. In this note, Alana Preston argues that individual countries should enforce their domestic laws to prevent the Japanese from whaling, so private entities, like Sea Shepherd, will not.
Eddleman v. U.S.


An action was brought against the BLM under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming that the government was negligent in failing to inform the adopters that they would not be eligible to receive title if they intended to sell the horses to slaughter. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one sounding in contract, based upon the PMCA, and one that therefore should be brought before the U.S. Claims Court.  
Edmonds v. Cailloux



An in-home caretaker of a sick, elderly woman sued the woman, her trust, and her son after the son’s dog knocked her down causing injury. The court of appeals remanded the case because it found a genuine issue as to whether the dog had dangerous propensities and whether the son knew of the dog’s dangerous propensities to justify strict liability. The court did, however, affirm the order of summary judgment as to the negligence claim, where the son was not the caretaker’s employer and thus did not owe her a duty to exercise reasonable care.
Edmondson v. Oklahoma


Petitioners sought relief from a temporary injunction for the Respondents, which prevented petitioners from enforcing the statute banning cockfighting.  The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the statute did not violate the Oklahoma State Constitution, and was not unconstitutionally overbroad.  Relief granted for petitioners.
Edmonson v. State This appeal arises from Edmonson's bench trial conviction in Marion County for Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal, after he surrendered his fourteen-year-old dog, Snuggles, to an Indianapolis animal control facility on July 10, 2024. Upon arrival, the dog appeared dead but was confirmed alive via intracardiac injection, presenting with open sores on his hind legs and rectal area, maggots, tape around his snout, and a three-out-of-nine body condition score; the dog was euthanized shortly thereafter. Edmonson testified that Snuggles had been immobile and soiling himself for months, that he first noticed maggots four to five days before surrender, and that he delayed seeking help despite the dog's deteriorating condition, while his friend Reed testified that the dog's condition was "[h]orrible" and in need of veterinary care at least thirty days prior. On appeal, the court held that the evidence sufficiently supported the recklessness element under Indiana Code § 35-46-3-7(a), as the fact-finder could reasonably infer that Edmonson's prolonged failure to surrender the dog or obtain care—despite a free and humane alternative being available—constituted a plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm substantially deviating from acceptable conduct. The court affirmed the conviction and 365-day suspended sentence.
Edwards v. Shanley


Automobile driver fled scene of a traffic stop and sustained serious injuries when he was attacked by a police dog, which was allowed to continue for 5 - 7 minutes. Plaintiff brought § 1983 action, alleging that the use of the police dog constituted excessive force, and that the other officer failed to intervene and stop the attack, both of which violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals held that the use of the police dog to help track and initially subdue the driver was constitutional, but permitting the dog to continue to attack the driver constituted excessive force.

Pages