Results
Displaying 6571 - 6580 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roberts v. 219 South Atlantic Boulevard, Inc. | 914 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 2005) | 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2704 |
Defendant brought his dog to work with him as the nightclub's maintenance man. As plaintiff walked by defendant's truck, he was bitten by defendant's dog. The plaintiff than sued the nightclub for damages due to the bite. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants stating that the facts of the case did not meet the four prong test that was needed to hold an employer liable for injuries to a third party. |
Case | |
| Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms, LLC | This reflects Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief. In a press release, Plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens states, "[t]oday, one of the country’s largest poultry producers and a KFC supplier, Case Farms, was sued by animal-welfare charity Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) in Burke County District Court for its pattern of gross mismanagement and animal cruelty. The complaint comes on the heels of a 2021 undercover investigation by animal advocacy group Animal Outlook, revealing a trend of cruel and deadly abuse at a Morganton, N.C. Case Farms hatchery that processes more than 200,000 chicks daily. LIC accuses Case Farms of violating both industry standards and North Carolina law." | Pleading | |||
| AR - Health - 125.00.12. Arkansas Health Requirements Governing the Entry of Livestock, Poultry, and Exotic Animals | AR ADC 125 00 001 | Ark. Admin. Code 125.00.12 | Under Section 125.00.12, it is illegal to import any animal that is affected with, or has been recently exposed to, any infectious or communicable disease. An entry permit from the Livestock and Poultry Commission and certificate of veterinary health is required to import all zoo, wild, and/or exotic animals. Prior to entry the agency requires certain disease tests appropriate to the species at issue. | Administrative | |
| IA - Humane Slaughter - Meat and Poultry Inspection Act | I. C. A. § 189A.1 - .22 | IA ST § 189A.1 - 22 | This Iowa section, known as the Meat and Poultry Inspection Act, also contains the state's humane slaughter laws. For purposes of this section an approved humane slaughtering method shall include and be limited to slaughter by shooting, electrical shock, captive bolt, or use of carbon dioxide gas prior to the animal being shackle hoisted, thrown, cast or cut (except for the ritual requirements proscribed by the Jewish or any other religious faith). Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter for which no other criminal penalty is provided shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor, which appears to include the humane slaughter provision. | Statute | |
| R v D.L. | R. v. D.L., 1999 ABPC 41 | In R v D.L. (1999 ABPC 41) the phrase “wilfully and without lawful excuse” found in s.446 was at issue. In this case, two individuals were charged under s. 445(a) s.446 (1)(a) for killing a cat after the cats’ owner told them to “get rid of it” which they took to mean kill it. The judge in this case found that having permission to kill an animal was not a sufficient “lawful excuse” and did not lawfully give the authority to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. The accused was found not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2. | Case | ||
| Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) | 2013 A.M.C. 169513, Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 52422013, Daily Journal D.A.R. 6656 | After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea. | Case | |
| Rosenfeld v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mendon | 940 N.E.2d 891 (Ma. App., 2011) | 78 Mass.App.Ct. 677 (2011); 2011 WL 242734 (Ma. App., 2011) |
A zoning board granted landowner’s application for a special permit, and neighbor property owners appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that defendant’s proposed use of land for horse stables fit within the agricultural use exception of the zoning ordinance and by-laws, and that plaintiffs had standing to enforce a deed restriction on defendant’s property. |
Case | |
| In re: DAVID M. ZIMMERMAN | 56 Agric. Dec. 433 (1997) | 1997 WL 327152 (U.S.D.A.) | Purpose of sanctions is to deter respondent, as well as others, from committing same or similar violations. | Case | |
| Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru | Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru | This case revolves around a legal dispute between the plaintiff and the District Municipality of San Ramón regarding the plaintiff's right to keep her pet pig "Petunia" in her home. The plaintiff filed an Amparo petition seeking the invalidation of four administrative resolutions related to pet ownership. In addition, the plaintiff requested the dismissal of an administrative sanctioning procedure based on the plaintiff's violation of such resolutions, ordering the removal of Petunia from the plaintiff's home and her relocation outside the city. Lastly, the plaintiff requested authorization to keep Petunia under good sanitary conditions. The plaintiff alleged a violation of her rights to due process, free development of personality, and personal and family privacy, as the resolutions and subsequent sanctioning procedure did not allow her and her family to have Petunia with them, who was considered part of the family and with whom the plaintiff and her children had an emotional bond. Additionally, she argued that Petunia's welfare rights were also being violated. The lower court denied the Amparo, stating that such a petition was inadequate when there was an appropriate procedural mechanism to protect infringed upon rights. Since the plaintiff could seek relief through an administrative procedure, the Amparo, in this case, did not proceed. The plaintiff exhausted all her procedural instances, and on March 16, 2022, through Resolution 13, Juzgado Civil de La Merced granted the petition, invalidated the administrative resolutions, and ordered the dismissal of the administrative sanctioning procedure against the plaintiff. Thus, allowing her to continue to keep Petunia under good sanitary conditions. | Case | ||
| Sentencia 25000-23-24-000-2011-00227-01(AP) | 25000-23-24-000-2011-00227-01(AP) | Update: on December 12, 2014, the State Council's Fourth Chamber invalidated the Third Chamber's decision by revoking defendant's license to capture monkeys on the Amazon. This decision resulted from a "Tutela" filed by the defendants arguing procedural and substantive errors. In its decision, State Council stated that the Third Chamber, Subsection C, had violated the fundamental rights to due process and scientific investigation. Therefore, defendants are allowed to hunt and capture night monkeys in the Amazon so long as they meet the requirements and conditions for granting such licenses established in Resolutions 028 of May 13, 2010, and 0632 of June 29, 2919. This case concerns the monkeys used in scientific research in the Colombian Amazon to create a malaria vaccine. In 2012, plaintiff, a primatologist, raised before the Administrative Tribunal in Cundinamarca a series of irregularities incurred by the defendant in the capture and treatment of night monkeys (Aotus vociferans). Through a popular action (A constitutional mechanism to protect collective rights), the plaintiff argued that the defendants were violating collective rights such as administrative morality, the existence of ecological balance and the management and rational use of natural resources, and public safety and health. The defendant, "Fundación Instituto de Inmunología de Colombia" (FIDIC), is a scientific institution dedicated to research and scientific study for creating and developing chemically synthesized vaccines. Manuel Elkin Patarroyo, the Director, is a renowned Colombian scientist and the creator of the first vaccine against malaria accepted by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Patarroyo had a license to hunt and capture 800 primates of this species per year for his research against malaria. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that Patarroyo was illegally trafficking monkeys from Brazil and Peru to Colombian territory, as there was evidence that they were using monkeys from across the border with these countries without complying with legal importation requirements. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was experimenting on monkeys of a different species (Aotus nancymaae) found in Peru and Brazil, for which they did not have the corresponding license. Plaintiff also alleged that specimens of both species were acquired by paying members of native indigenous groups, who captured the animals without permit or supervision from respective authorities. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that governmental authorities did not perform inspections, and there were no records of how many specimens were being used and how they were being treated. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants released surviving monkeys infected with malaria back into the wild once they were of no use to the laboratory, ignoring the risks that this posed to the ecosystem and indigenous communities. The Administrative Tribunal in Cundinamarca ruled in favor of the plaintiff, revoking the defendant's permit to capture monkeys in the Amazon. Defendants appealed the decision before the Third Chamber of the State Council, which affirmed the revocation of the license. The State Council stated that the defendants had violated the collective rights and affirmed the license revocation to protect the collective rights of wild animals, particularly of the Aotus Vociferans monkeys. This ruling suspended the investigations and ordered disciplinary investigations against the governmental authorities that issued the license. In affirming the tribunal's decision, the court stated: "To the Colombian legislator, animals and plant species (for example, forests, the Amazon, páramos, water sources, resources, etc.) are subject to rights. Therefore, through popular action, any person can request their protection by acting as an unofficial agent of these entities without it being possible to acknowledge that it is a collective-subjective right belonging to society. On the contrary, it is about the express recognition by the Constitution and the Colombian legislator of attributing value in themselves to animals and plant species, for which, in each specific case, the judge must make a judgment by weighting competing interests" (...) "humans can use animals for survival, company, research, work, or recreational activities, but without violating the rights that assist them." | Case |