United States

Displaying 3191 - 3200 of 4847
Titlesort descending Summary
PA - Pet Sales - § 201-9.3. Dog purchaser protection This Pennsylvania statute comprises the state's Dog Purchaser Protection law. The law mandates disclosure of a dog's health history by a seller (defined as pet shop operator or other individual who sells dogs to the public and who owns or operates a kennel or pet shop licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture or the United States Department of Agriculture). If, within ten days after the date of purchase, a dog purchased from a seller is determined, through physical examination, diagnostic tests or necropsy by a veterinarian, to be clinically ill or dies from any contagious or infectious illness or any parasitic illness which renders it unfit for purchase or results in its death, the purchaser may exercise one of the described statutory elections.
PA - Rabies - Chapter 7A. Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act This chapter is known as the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act. Every person living in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who owns or keeps a dog or cat over three months of age, must have that dog or cat to be vaccinated against rabies. A person who violates any provision of this act commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $300 for each violation. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
PA - Rabies - § 459-301. Quarantines This Pennsylvania statute outlines the procedures and regulations relative to the state rabies quarantine procedure for dogs. It also provides that any police officer or state dog warden may humanely kill any dog running at large in a rabies quarantined area without any liability for damages for such killing.
PA - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Subchapter P. Wildlife Rehabilitation Under this Pennsylvania chapter of regulations, the Director may issue a permit to an individual who meets the requirements of 34 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a) (relating to authority to issue permits) and this subchapter for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife capture and transportation, and educational use of rehabilitation wildlife. "Wildlife rehabilitation"is defined as the treatment and temporary care of injured, diseased and displaced wildlife, and the subsequent release of healthy wildlife to appropriate habitats in the wild.
PA - Trust - § 7738. Trust for care of animal - UTC 408 In 2006, Pennsylvania became the 32nd state to adopt a pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
PA - Veterinary - Chapter 14A. Veterinary Medicine Practice. These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.
PA - Veterinary Issues - Rules of Professional Conduct The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is empowered under section 5(2) of the act (63 P. S. § 485.5(2)) to adopt rules and regulations of professional conduct appropriate to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skill and practice in the profession of veterinary medicine. In accordance with this authority, the Board has determined that the following rules are necessary in the public interest to protect the public against unprofessional conduct on the part of veterinarians.
Pacific Ranger, LLC v. Pritzker Pacific Ranger, LLC, a deep-sea commercial fishing vessel, filed suit arguing that a decision made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) should be set aside by the court. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) filed an action against Pacific Ranger for violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) after the vessel set its fishing net on whales during five tuna-fishing expeditions. After the hearing, the ALJ determined that Pacific Ranger had violated the MMPA and was liable for $127,000 in civil penalties. Pacific Ranger argued that these penalties should be set aside because the MMPA was unconstitutionally vague about what was considered an “incidental” taking and the ALJ’s findings could not be supported by substantial evidence. Ultimately, the court reviewed the arguments made by Pacific Ranger and found them to be without merit. First, the court determined that the MMPA was not vague with regard to incidental takings. The court held that incidental takings under the MMPA were restricted to takings that occurred without any knowledge and that this provision needed to be read narrowly in order to give effect to Congress’ intent that maintaining the “healthy populations of marine animals comes first.” The court found that because Pacific Ranger had knowledge that whales were in the area at the time that they were fishing, the taking that occurred could not be considered incidental. Lastly, the court reviewed Pacific Ranger’s argument that the ALJ’s decision could not be supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected this argument, pointing to expert testimony that said that there was no possible way for the Pacific Ranger not to have seen that whales were in the area at the time the takings occurred. As a result, the court affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
Padgett v. Winslow This case involves plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for veterinary expenses after purchasing a Yorkshire Terrier puppy ("Bentley") that exhibited severe illness symptoms, including lethargy and repeated dark brown vomiting, just four days after purchase from defendant's pet store. The puppy was eventually diagnosed with Parvovirus at Cornell University Hospital for Animals, requiring intensive treatment. The central legal issues revolve around: (1) whether plaintiffs could recover under General Business Law § 753 (which they failed to satisfy due to lack of timely veterinary certification); (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under UCC §§ 2-314 and 2-715 given the puppy's rapid deterioration and positive PCR test for Parvovirus; and (3) promissory estoppel claims regarding alleged reimbursement promises. The court found plaintiffs established by preponderance of evidence that Bentley was infected at time of sale, noting the puppy's excessive sleeping from day one and subsequent critical condition, while rejecting defendant's 3-4 day incubation period arguments as inconsistent with veterinary evidence showing 7-day symptom onset. While denying promissory estoppel claims for lack of detrimental reliance, the court awarded damages under UCC theories, emphasizing the highly contagious nature of Parvovirus and finding defendant's 48-hour return policy unconscionable under UCC § 2-719(3) as applied to defective goods. The court awarded plaintiffs judgment in the amount of $3,878.29 for veterinary expenses plus court costs against defendants Melissa Winslow and Melrose Pet Palace.
Padilla v. Stringer 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.

Pages