Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. | 68 FL ADC 68A-9.006 | Rule 68A-9.006, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| AK - Endangered Species - Endangered and Threatened Species | AS § 16.20.180 - 210 | AK ST § 16.20.180 - 210 | This Alaska statute provides that the state shall take measures to preserve the habitat of species or subspecies which, are threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, overutilization, disease, predation, or other human or natural factors. Species recognized as endangered or threatened also gain habitat protection on state lands. Taking of a listed species without permit incurs a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Pagel v. Yates | 471 N.E.2d 946 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.,1984) | 128 Ill.App.3d 897, 84 Ill.Dec. 180 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.,1984) |
Horse owner sued breeder for negligence and conversion after breeder returned the wrong mare. On issue of damages, Appellate Court held that evidence was insufficient to support the jury award because 1) evidence of value of mare’s offspring four years after conversion was irrelevant and prejudicial; 2) trial court's instruction to jury allowed recovery for the horse's unborn offspring as well as fair market value of horse in foal, which permitted a double recovery; and 3) owner could not recover his expenses after he learned of switch and made no effort to resolve the problem because he had duty to avoid further loss. |
Case | |
| Cardenas v. Swanson | 531 P.3d 917 (Wyo., 2023) | 2023 WY 67, 2023 WL 4344196 (Wyo. July 5, 2023) | The Cardenas family (Appellants) owned three St. Bernard dogs. Appellants lived on a home adjacent to large tracts of state land, and would allow the dogs to roam the land unleashed, but the dogs would return each night. One afternoon, the dogs were let outside to run, but one dog did not return. Appellants found the dog caught in a snare, where it died from a broken neck. Appellants attempted to free the dog from the snare, and one of the Cardenas children was injured in the process. While appellants were attempting to free their dog from the snare, the other two dogs were also caught in snares, and died from their injuries. Appellants filed suit against the trapper who set the snares (Appellee), asserting claims of negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, violation of statutes, infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted and denied in part, finding that appellee’s conduct was not willful and wanton and that appellants could not recover emotional damages for the loss of the dogs. On appeal, the court considered: (1) whether the members of the Cardenas family can recover damages for emotional injuries for the loss of their dogs, and (2) whether this court should allow the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet. The court held that (1) emotional injuries for the loss of property are not recoverable, under this court’s precedent emotional damages are only recoverable for certain limited situations. Dogs are considered personal property under state law, and damage to personal property is not one of the situations in which emotional damages are recoverable. Next, the court held that (2) it would not create a precedent to allow people to recover emotional distress damages when animate personal property is harmed, as that change would be best suited for the legislature to make. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the case. | Case | |
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | ||||
| Canada - Ontario - Dog Owners' Liability Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 1 - 20(4) | This Ontario, Canada set of laws comprises the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The main thrust of the law is to establish that an owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. Proceedings may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that the dog attacked or bitten another person or domestic animal, or if the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. A court may then order the destruction of the dog, or measures for more effective control of the dog (leash restraint, muzzling, etc.). The Act also bans the owning, breeding, importing, or transferring of pit bull dogs in Ontario, save for dogs grandfathered in before the Act took effect in 2005 (then the dog is a "restricted pit bull" subject to further laws). | Statute | ||
| Stauber v. Shalala | 895 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Wis.,1995) |
Court found that milk consumers failed to prove that milk gained from rBST-treated cows contains higher levels of antibiotics, tastes different, or differs in any noticeable way from "ordinary" milk. That consumers might demand mandatory labeling was not enough to require labeling; rather, the FDA was required to ensure that products are not misbranded and consumer demand could not require the FDA to forgo this duty. |
Case | ||
| DE - Domestic Violence - § 1045. Relief available; duration of orders, modification and termination | 10 Del.C. § 1045 | DE ST TI 10 § 1045 | Delaware amended its law on protection orders in domestic violence situations to include protection of pets in 2023. Per subsection (a)(12), a court may "[g]rant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody, or control of any companion animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or respondent and order the respondent to stay away from the companion animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming, or otherwise disposing of the companion animal." | Statute | |
| Sample Post |
Sample Post of Dog Map
|
Policy | |||
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute |
