Results
Displaying 3671 - 3680 of 6844
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MILITARY WORKING DOGS: CLASSIFICATION AND TREATMENT IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES | Sarah D. Cruse | 21 Animal L. 249 (2015) | This Article explores and evaluates the use of canines by the United States (U.S.) Armed Forces as military working dogs, and examines the reasons why the current administrative classification of these dogs is inappropriate. The author examines the historical use of, and increasing reliance on, military working dogs by the U.S. Armed Forces from World War II to present day. This historical exploration traces the development of the federal statutes and military regulations that govern the Military Working Dog Program. Federal law currently categorizes military working dogs as 'equipment,' which grossly underestimates their role within the U.S. military and deprives these dogs of the opportunity to transition to a peaceful civilian life once they are deemed 'excess equipment' and retired from service. Categorization as equipment creates significant obstacles for service members, their families, and civilian parties who wish to adopt these dogs. This categorization also deprives military working dogs of ongoing medical care upon retirement, eligibility for recognition and commendation, and burial in national military cemeteries. Despite some of the recent improvements made in the military's treatment of these dogs, more work is needed. This Article urges Congress to recategorize military working dogs as canine members of the armed forces in order to properly honor their service to this country, and to protect the dignity of these dogs upon retirement. | Article | |
| Milke v. Ratcliff Animal Hospital, Inc. | 120 So.3d 343 (La.App. 2 Cir., 2013) | 48,130 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/10/13) | This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought against a veterinarian and veterinary clinic, as well as an action for improper delay and bad faith dealing against the insurer of the veterinary clinic. Plaintiff brought this case after their 6-month old puppy died in the post-operative period following neutering surgery. Defendant veterinarian and clinic could not provide an exact cause of death, and the malpractice insurer that plaintiff was referred to denied plaintiff's malpractice claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court found that the veterinarian and clinic did not commit malpractice and the insurer did not act in bad faith, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. | Case | |
| Miller v. Dep't of Agric. | 168 Conn. App. 255, 145 A.3d 393 (2016) | 168 Conn. App. 255 (Conn. App. 2016), 2016 WL 4654364 (Conn. App. 2016) | The Plaintiff, Kim Miller, argued “a severe deprivation” of her rights when the Superior Court dismissed her appeal to prevent her dogs from being euthanized. Miller owned two Rottweiler dogs that attacked the victim Cynthia Reed, causing injuries to Reed's head, the back of her neck, and her back. An animal control officer issued two disposal orders to euthanize Miller’s dogs. The Defendant, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, then affirmed the orders and Miller appealed. The Superior Court also dismissed the appeal, and Miller appealed further to the Appellate Court of Connecticut. Here, Miller argues, among other things, that her Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses were violated when witnesses were not available for cross-examination. Plaintiff Miller also claims that there were procedural violations in the initial hearing because of lack of written rules that applied to dog disposal orders and claimed error when the hearing officer acted acted arbitrarily and capriciously by “interject[ing] his opinion” while questioning a witness. The Appellate Court held that: (1) the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) did not preclude the admission of statements from the victim and an eyewitness, even though the victim and witness did not testify at the hearing. The court reasoned that in administrative proceedings under the UAPA, evidence is not inadmissible solely because it constitutes hearsay, as long as the evidence is reliable and probative. Additionally, a party to an administrative proceeding under the UAPA is not required to call any particular witness. (2) A dog owner's appeal of disposal orders for a biting animal is not a criminal prosecution that invokes Sixth Amendment protections. The court reasoned that the issuance of a disposal order does not, by itself, trigger the imposition of a fine or prison term on the owner. Rather, by obviating the threat that dangerous animals pose to the public, the provision is remedial and civil in nature. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal was affirmed. | Case | |
| Miller v. Nye Cty. | 488 F. Supp. 3d 973 (D. Nev. 2020) | 2020 WL 5648198 | In this case, Plaintiff Gary Miller sued Nye County and one of its deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various Nevada state laws for the fatal shooting of his dog, Blu. Blu was shot four times at the plaintiff's residence after officers responded when Mr. Miller accidentally set off a silent alarm at his own residence. The County and deputy moved to dismiss three of the plaintiff's claims and his request for punitive damages against the County. The court granted the motion to dismiss those claims because it found that the County is statutorily immune from Plaintiff's negligent-training claim and because he lacks the necessary relationship with Blu to establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. With regard to the punitive damages claim in a § 1983 action, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss that request for relief. Finally, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss Miller's § 1983 claim against it because the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief under a theory of single-incident liability. However, the court granted leave to amend this claim if the plaintiff can plausibly allege that the County has engaged in a pattern of similar conduct, or that the scenario in this case is likely to recur and that an officer who is ill-equipped to handle the scenario will likely commit a constitutional violation. | Case | |
| Miller v. Peraino | 626 A.2d 637 (Pa.Super., 1993) | 426 Pa.Super. 189 (1993) |
The incident generating this dispute after two veterinary assistants claimed that Miller viciously beat plaintiff's dog Nera to death because he was having difficulty getting the dog from the basement recovery room to the waiting area upstairs where the dog would be picked up. The sole issue on this appeal is the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from both the dog's death and the veterinarian's behavior during plaintiff's picketing of his business. Relying on both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and a prior decision inDaughen v. Fox, the court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot legally be founded upon a veterinarian's behavior toward an animal. |
Case | |
| Mills v. Guthrie County Rural Elec. Co-op. Ass'n | 454 N.W.2d 846 (1990) |
Rural electric cooperative association caused fire that destroyed hog farrowing facility. Customers sued to recover damages. The Supreme Court held that: (1) punitive damages were not recoverable; (2) customers did not have claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; but (3) evidence of lost profits from future pig litters as a measure of business interruption damages should not have been excluded. |
Case | ||
| Mills v. State | 848 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. App. 1993). |
In an animal cruelty conviction, the law requires that sentences arising out of same criminal offenses be prosecuted in single action and run concurrently. |
Case | ||
| Mills v. State | 802 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. App. 1991). |
In criminal conviction for cruelty to animals, statute requires that sentences arising out of same criminal offenses be prosecuted in single action and run concurrently. |
Case | ||
| Ministerial Resolution No. 0269-2017-MINAGRI - Peru (2017) | This is regulation is issued by the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI). It orders the creation of a temporary working group with the purpose of drafting the corresponding regulations to the Law on Animal Protection and Welfare (Law 30407) regarding farm animals and captive wildlife. | Statute | |||
| MINISTERIO PÚBLICO FISCAL S/ INVESTIGACIÓN MALTRATO ANIMAL – PUNTA TOMBO, 2024 (Argentina) Do not publish yet | Case |