Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Initiatives - Amendment 14, Regulation of Commercial Hog Facilities | Amendment 14, 1998 | This 1998 Colorado Ballot Measure created additional regulations for large-scale hog producers. The goal was to better curb the waste run-off from such facilities. It passed in the 1998 election with 64.2% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| WI - Horsemeat - 97.45. Labeling of horsemeat | W.S.A. 97.45 (97.45. Repealed by 2015 Act 243, § 59, eff. March 3, 2016) | WI ST 97.45 | [97.45. Repealed by 2015 Act 243, § 59, eff. March 3, 2016]. This former statute states that no person shall sell any horsemeat, unless it is conspicuously labeled, marked, branded or tagged “horsemeat.” Violation is a Class H felony. | Statute | |
| N.E. GA. PET RESCUE, INC. and DONALD L. GILBERT, plaintiffs v. ELBERT COUNTY, defendant |
In this Georgia case, plaintiff ran a pet rescue out of his home. Defendant Elbert County enacted an ordinance effective in October 2005 that requires every owner or custodian of more than 15 dogs to obtain a kennel license from the Elbert County Animal Control Department. To obtain this license, the applicant must be ". . . accompanied by a written statement signed by the head of household of each residence located within 1,200 feet of the kennel or proposed location of the kennel, stating that said resident does not object to the location and operation of a kennel at said location or proposed location." Plaintiff was unable to obtain these signed statements. He then challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional and unenforceable because it conditions the granting of a license upon the completely arbitrary and subjective approval of neighbors and uses an unconstitutionally vague term ("head of household"). In the consent agreement between the parties, Elbert County agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance and give plaintiff sufficient notice to again file injunctive relief if it chooses to amend the ordinance. |
Pleading | |||
| Habitat for Horses v. Salazar | 745 F.Supp.2d 438 (S.D.N.Y., 2010) | 2010 WL 4151863 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Prior to October 2010, the North Piceance Herd Area served as a home to approximately 60 wild horses. The horses, however, were removed by the BLM, giving rise to this litigation. Plaintiffs assert that the BLM’s decision to remove the wild horses violates the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, NEPA, the Information Quality Act, and the FLPMA. The District Court concluded that, while Plaintiffs did establish irreparable harm, they were not likely to succeed on the merits. |
Case | |
| Gomez v. Innocent | 765 S.E.2d 405 (Ga.App., 2014) | 330 Ga.App. 260 (2014) | Josh Gomez took his dog, Pilot, to Pet First Animal Hospital because Pilot was lethargic and throwing up. Gary Innocent, the veterinarian, diagnosed Pilot with parvo virus that could have killed him if left untreated. Innocent gave Gomez an estimate of $1,453.25 for the dog’s care. The animal hospital required full payment up front, but Gomez could not afford to pay so Innocent accepted $400 for one night’s care. Gomez left the dog for the night and called the following day. He was informed that he owed an additional $751.25. Gomez paid the $751.25 on the following day. Upon picking up Pilot from the animal hospital he was informed that he owed an additional $484.80. Gomez could not pay the $484.80 so Innocent asked Gomez to leave Pilot at the animal hospital until the bill was paid. Gomez obliged and left Pilot there. After Pilot was at the animal hospital for 20 days, a good Samaritan paid the dog’s accrued bill of $972. Gomez sued, alleging that Innocent and PetFirst breached their contract by refusing to return the dog after he paid the amounts agreed to, but before he paid “additional sums not agreed to by the parties in their initial contract.” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Innocent and PetFirst. This appeal followed. Gomez claimed that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed as to the validity of the veterinary lien statute. The Court stated that Innocent was a licensed veterinarian who, at Gomez’s request, treated Gomez’s dog. Gomez signed a treatment authorization form and was informed that all professional fees were due at the time services were rendered. A detailed written estimate of the expected treatments and costs was given to Gomez which stated that the total final bill could vary from the estimate. Gomez did not present any evidence creating an issue of material fact as to the accuracy or validity of any of the charges on the itemized bill that Innocent produced. Innocent met his burden by showing that he acted properly in relying on the veterinary lien statute to retain the dog when Gomez failed to pay. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. | Case | |
| U.S. v. Thirty-Eight Golden Eagles | 649 F.Supp. 269 (D. Nev. 1986) |
Defendant appeals a civil forfeiture action under the BGEPA. In applying the three-part Callahan test to defendant's free exercise claim, the court holds that while defendant's religious exercise is substantially burdened, the government has a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and effectuates this interest in the least restrictive means. The court declines to consider defendant's free exercise challenge to the permit process, as defendant failed to apply for a permit and thus lacks standing. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo | RIN 1018-AJ03 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that we will hold one additional public hearing on the proposed rule to remove the Eastern Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In a notice made in the Federal Register on August 13, 2004 (69 FR 50147), we announced the locations for nine other public hearing previously scheduled. |
Administrative | ||
| Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd | (2001) 208 CLR 199 | (2001) 185 ALR 1; (2001) 76 ALJR 1; (2001) 22(19) Leg Rep 11; (2001) 54 IPR 161; (2001) Aust Torts Reports 81-627; [2001] HCA 63 |
The respondent was successful in obtaining an injunction against the appellants from publishing a film displaying possums being stunned and killed at an abattoir. The film had been obtained from a third party while trespassing. The Court found that it was not unconscionable for the appellants to publish the film and a corporation did not have a right to privacy. |
Case | |
| Bonner v. Martino | 927 So.2d 564 (La.App. 5 Cir., 2006) | 2006 WL 782710 (La.App. 5 Cir.) |
Plaintiff-housekeeper brought an action against her employers and their liability insurance providers after the employers' dog jumped up on a door that subsequently injured the plaintiff. In affirming the trial court's granting of defendants' motion for summary judgment, the appellate court held that housekeeper did not demonstrate that dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm. |
Case | |
| UT - Equine Activity Liability - Part 2. Limitations on Liability for Equine and Livestock Activities | U.C.A. 1953 § 78B-4-201 - 203 | UT ST § 78B-4-201 - 203 | This Utah section states that it is presumed that participants in equine or livestock activities are aware of and understand that there are inherent risks associated with these activities. Thus, an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, livestock activity sponsor, or livestock professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant due to the inherent risks associated with these activities. The section also requires an equine professional to give notice to participants of the limitation of liability, either by the posting of a sign or by the execution of a written release. | Statute |