Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Capers' Estate | 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) | 15 Fiduc.Rep. 150, 1963 WL 6573 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) |
In this Pennsylvania case, the testatrix directed in her will that her Irish setter dogs to be destroyed in a humane manner. The executors were unsure of what action to take and sought declaratory relief. In attempting to construe the testatrix's intent, the court found that she "evidently feared that either they would grieve for her or that no one would afford them the same affection and kindness that they received during her life." The court found that the intent of testatrix would be carried out if her two favored Irish setters were placed in an environment where they are given the same care and attention that she she gave them during her life. The final question the court grappled with was whether it was against public policy to hold valid a clause in a will directing the summary destruction of certain of decedent's property after her death. The court held that the clause was void as not being within the purview of the Wills Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and being against the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. |
Case | |
| Missouri Farmers Ass'n v. Kempker | 726 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.,1987) |
Missouri Farmers Association sued a dairy farmer on account and notes. The farmer counterclaimed, alleging that Association had supplied defective feed. The Supreme Court held that farmer's recovery for diminution in cows' value did not preclude recovery for loss of milk and calf production. However, the farmer failed to sufficiently link the feed to his damages, so his evidence of lost profits was speculative, which prevented recovery. |
Case | ||
| RSPCA v. McCormick | [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin) | It was held that for an animal fight to have taken place, contrary to Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act, the following must have occurred: a "protected animal" must have been placed with another animal in an environment where the ability of both to escape is restricted and controlled by some person or persons connected with that activity or by some artificial restraint. ‘Placed with’ is to be construed as a ‘matter of normal language.’ | Case | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Part 222 - General Endangered and Threatened Marine Species | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 222.101 to .310 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations relate to certificate of exemptions for pre-Act endangered species part under the general regulations for endangered and threatened marine species. The Assistant Administrator may issue permits for scientific purposes or for the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the affected endangered or threatened species in accordance with these regulations. Any person to whom a Certificate of Exemption has been issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service may apply to the Assistant Administrator for renewal of such certificate. | Administrative | |
| OH - Wildlife possession - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Restoration, Possession, and Transportation of Wildlife | R.C. § 1533.28 - 1533.32 | OH ST 1533.28 - 1533.32 | These Ohio statutes regulate possession of wildlife. These laws make it illegal to transport fish, game birds, or wild quadrupeds or any part thereof, unless in a container with a label showing certain information. However, no one may transport certain game birds and game quadrupeds out of state. No person may fish in any of the waters in the state without a license, including taking frogs or turtles. However, people fishing in privately owned waters are exempt from the license requirements. | Statute | |
| MI - Assistance animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | MCL 287.291 and MCL 750.50a, 750.502c; MCL 752.51a, 752.52, 752.61 - 64; M.C.L.A. 37.301 - 307 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | ||
| Bates v. Constable | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) |
A son obtained a dog from defendant for his father to have as a pet. The dog bit the father and the father sued defendant for failing to warn him of the dog's vicious propensities. The Court held the defendant did not owe the second transferee of the dog a duty to warn and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. |
Case | |
| Brown v. Crocker | 139 So.2d 779 (La. 1962) |
This action in tort was instituted by plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of his minor son, against the defendant to recover the value of a quarter-horse mare and a stillborn colt, and for damages occasioned by shock and mental anguish suffered by the son, as well as for services of a veterinarian and medicines used in treatment of the mare following her wounding by a shotgun blast intentionally inflicted by the defendant. The Court of Appeal in upheld an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish experienced by the child who could not stop crying about the loss of his horse and the colt that never was. As the court stated, "Under the facts and circumstances, an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish suffered by the minor would, in our opinion, do justice between the parties." |
Case | ||
| Historical Materials |
Historical Collection
|
Basic page | |||
| US - Critical Habitat - Statements by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regarding the Designation of Critical Habitat | 2004 WL 2232024 (F.R.) | 69 FR 59996-01 |
This excerpt is from the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout, 69 FR 59996-01, 2004 WL 2232024 (F.R.). It apparently expresses the opinion of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that the current process for designating critical habitat does little for the conservation of listed species. |
Administrative |