Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 337: Section 6546 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6546 (1918) | Section 6546 of Chapter 337 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers jurisdiction and powers of courts. Specifically, the statute states the power of the court to issue search warrants for animal cruelty. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 96: Sections 1879-1886 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1879-1886 (1918) | Sections 1879-1886 of Chapter 96 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers in general the Humane Society for Connecticut. Specifically, the sections cover the following topics: the powers of an agent from the society, the definition of an animal, and funding of the society. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 331: Section 6367 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6367 (1918). | Section 6367 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the transportation of wild animals. Specifically, the statute establishes the duty of care that must be given to the public when transporting a wild animal. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 333: Sections 6402-6405 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 6402-6405 (1918) | Sections 6402-6405 of Chapter 333 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers offences against humanity and morality. Specifically, the statutes cover following topics: animal cruelty, transportation of animals, and docking of horses. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 338: Section 6619 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6619 (1918) | Section 6619 of Chapter 338 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers information, procedure and bail. Specifically, the statute states the circumstances for reach a search warrant will be issued. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Title 56: Sections 6480 - 6482n | Conn. Gen. Stat. Tit. 56 §§ 6480-6482 (1918) | Sections 6480-6482 of Title 56 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers offences against public policy. pecifically, the statutes cover following topics: animal fighting, penalty for attending a fight, and unlawful exhibition of sport for gain. | Statute | |
| Connecticut v. Devon D. | 321 Conn. 656, 138 A.3d 849 (2016) | 321 Conn. 656 (2016), 2016 WL 3194779 (Conn.,2016) | Devon D. was convicted of four counts sexual assault and three counts of risk of injury to a child upon allegations made by three of Devon D.’s biological children, C1, C2, and C3. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court had abused its discretion by having the three cases to be tried jointly and by permitting C1 to testify with a dog at her feet. The appellate court had accepted these arguments and reversed and remanded for a new trial, but the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the appellate court. The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that “the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the cases to be tried together because the evidence in all three cases was cross admissible,” and reversed on that issue. As to the appellate court’s determination that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting a dog to sit near C1 during her testimony to provide comfort and support,” the Supreme Court also reversed, reinstating the verdict and judgment of the trial court. | Case |
| Connor v. Bogrett | 596 P.2d 683 (Wyo., 1979) | 26 UCC Rep.Serv. 902 (Wyo., 1979). |
This Wyoming case concerns the application of the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Wyoming (ss 34-21-201 through 34-21-299.5, W.S.1977) to a sale of a registered Black Labrador retriever which was intended for competition in field trials. More specifically the question is whether the continued physical ability of this retriever, as a matter of law, was precluded from becoming part of the basis for the bargain of the parties. The court agreed with the district court in this instance that, as a matter of law, the expressions of the seller relative to the potential of this retriever were only expressions of opinion or commendation and not an express warranty. |
Case |
| Conservancy v. USFWS | 677 F.3d 1073 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) | 2012 WL 1319857 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) |
In this case, many environmental advocacy groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for a species, the Florida panther, which was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1967. The petition was denied. Claiming the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, the groups filed a citizens suit under the ESA in district court. At district, the group's complaints were dismissed and the groups subsequently lost on appeal. |
Case |
| Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service | 720 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5970; 2013 WL 2631449 |
When two federal agencies authorized the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project, a conservation group sued the agencies for failing to adequately evaluate the project's effects on the Northern Spotted Owl's critical habitat, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Upon appeal of the lower court's decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the conservation group's challenge to the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was premised on a misunderstanding of regulatory terms, on an unsupported reading of a duty to consider cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act,and on selected portions of the record taken out of context. The district court's decision was therefore affirmed.
|
Case |