Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reece v. Edmonton (City) | 335 DLR (4th) 600; 513 AR 199; [2011] CarswellAlta 1349; 530 WAC 199 | This case dealt with the procedure the applicants used to get their claim heard by the court. The respondent City holds a licence under the Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W‑10 to operate a zoo, which houses a lone Asian elephant named Lucy. The appellants commenced this action by originating notice for an order. The chambers judge concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because a private litigant cannot seek a declaration that the respondent is in breach of a penal provision in a statute, namely that the elephant was kept in distress because of health concerns. Alternatively, he concluded that the application should have been brought by way of statement of claim, not originating notice. Further, the chambers judge concluded that the appellants had no private interest standing, and that there were barriers to them being awarded public interest standing. On appeal, the parties raised two issues: (1) whether the chambers judge erred in denying the appellants standing to seek a declaration; and (2) whether the chambers judge erred in concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of process. This court held that the chambers judge came to the correct conclusion that these proceedings are an abuse of process. APPEAL DISMISSED. | Case | ||
| Reed v. Vickery | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3276648 (S.D.Ohio) |
A veterinarian performed a pre-purchase examination on a horse and indicated to the prospective buyers that the horse was in good health. The vet facility failed to disclose that a different vet at the same facility had injected the horse to mask lameness. The purchasers had a cause of action for negligence where the statements made by the facility constituted misrepresentations or concealment. The measure of damages was the difference between the horse’s fair market value before and after the loss. |
Case | ||
| Reglamento de la Ley 29830, 2017 - Peru | Decreto Supremo Nº 001-2017-MIMP, 2017 | Reglamento de la ley Ley 29830 | Este reglamento se aprueba mediante el Decreto Supremo No. 001-2017-MIMP. Su proposito es establecer las disposiciones de la Ley No. 29830, modificada por la Ley No. 30433, que promueve y regula el uso de perros guía por personas con discapacidad visual. Entre otras disposiciones, esta normativa designa al Consejo Nacional para la Integración de la Persona con Discapacidad (CONADIS) como la autoridad responsable de implementar y definir los parámetros para el registro de perros guía en el Registro Nacional de Perros Guía. Además, establece que a las personas con discapacidad visual y sus perros guía se les debe permitir ingresar y permanecer en su lugar de trabajo, estudio y cualquier otro establecimiento en igualdad de condiciones, independientemente de si el lugar es público o privado, y sin costo adicional por llevar al perro. Esto incluye el acceso al transporte público. | Statute | |
| Rego v. Madalinski | 63 N.E.3d 190 (Ohio Ct. App., 2016) | 2016 -Ohio- 7339 | In this case, appellee's dog attacked appellant's dog while on appellee's property. Veterinary bills were over $10,000, and the municipal court capped compensatory damages at the fair market value of animal of $400, reasoning that animals are considered personal property. On appeal, this court discusses situations where veterinary costs are appropriate as damages, such as veterinary malpractice suits or where the animal had special characteristics like pedigree, training, or breeding income. Though this case does not fit into those categories, the court recognizes a ‘semi-property’ or 'companion property' classification of animals, and reverse the municipal court and remand for a damages hearing. | Case | |
| Regulating the Military's Survival Skills Training Under the Animal Welfare Act | Salma Mavany | 29 BCEALR 45 (2001) |
The United States Military tortuously kills farm animals when teaching soldiers survival skills. Presently, there is no law that specifically protects these farm animals. This Note analyzes whether the Military's animal cruelty can be regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). |
Article | |
| Regulation for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo | Krista Cotter | Michigan State University College of Law |
This overview compares the proposed regulation (68 FR 15879) and the changes made in the recent final rule (70 F.R. 1286) that concerns the Western Distinct Population Segment for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). |
Article | |
| Regulation of Ley 29830 - Peru | DECRETO SUPREMO Nº 001-2017-MIMP - Peru | Reglamento de la ley Ley 29830 | This regulation is approved through Supreme Decree No. 001-2017-MIMP. The purpose of this regulation is to establish the provisions of Law No. 29830, as amended by Law No. 30433, which promotes and regulates the use of guide dogs by visually impaired persons. Among other provisions, this regulation designates the National Council for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities (CONADIS) as the authority responsible for implementing and outlining the parameters for registering guide dogs in the National Guide Dog Registry. Additionally, it mandates that visually impaired persons and their guide dogs allowed to enter and remain in their place of work, study, and any other business on equal terms, regardless of whether the establishment is public or private, and without any additional cost for bringing the dog. This includes access to public transportation as well. | Statute | |
| Rehn v. Fischley | No. C0-95-813, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1539 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). |
The doctor was a veterinarian and a member of the board of directors for the humane society. The director of the humane society asked her for advice on how to clean cat cages, and the doctor gave advice and donated a bottle of formalin, whereupon the employee who used the formalin suffered permanent lung damage. The employee commenced an action against the doctor and humane society for damages. The court held that although the doctor would not have advised using formalin if she was not a member of the board, this fact did not establish that giving the advice was within the scope of her responsibilities as a board member. |
Case | ||
| Reichley v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture | 427 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 2005) |
Poultry Producers brought claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for deprivation of their property without adequate due process in response to an outbreak of avian influenza. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning there was no due process deprivation by failing to issue notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the quarantine and depopulation of the producers' flocks. |
Case | ||
| Reichley v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture | 427 F.3d 236 (Pa. 2005) |
Poultry Producers brought claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for deprivation of their property without adequate due process in response to an outbreak of avian influenza. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning there was no due process deprivation by failing to issue notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the quarantine and depopulation of the producers' flocks. |
Case |