Results

Displaying 131 - 140 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Hairston v. Burger King Corp. 764 So.2d 176 (La.App. 2 Cir.,2000)

Louisiana appeals court affirmed trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to adequately link her stomach ailment with a burger purchased from Burger King and thus could not sustain an action that sought recovery of alleged damages suffering due to food poisoning.

Case
In re: JULIAN J. TONEY AND ANITA L. TONEY 54 Agric. Dec. 923 (1995) 923, 1995 WL 785952 (U.S.D.A.) Civil penalty of $200,000.00 (largest civil penalty ever imposed under Act) was appropriate, where degree of willfulness and flagrancy of respondents' violations was astonishing, and even after hearing was pending on initial complaint, respondents continued to violate Act. Case
VA - Horse Transport - Chapter 160. Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Horses (repealed 2016) 2 VA ADC 5-160-10 to 90 2 VAC 5-160-10 to 90 [Note: these regulations were repealed in 2016 and are provided for historical context only.] These previous Virginia regulations address the transportation of loads of more than six horses being transported to a commercial slaughter facility in a vehicle. Vehicles that have more than one tier holding horses are allowed only if the tier is designed, constructed, and maintained to withstand the weight of the horses held by it. Administrative
TX - Licenses - § 826.032. Registration; Criminal Penalty V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.032 TX HEALTH & S § 826.032 This Texas statute provides that a person commits an offense (Class C misdemeanor) if he or she fails to or refuses to register or present for registration a dog or cat owned by the person as required by state law or local ordinance. Statute
AR - Batesville - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance. Sec. 6.04.12 Vicious animals-quarantine required BATESVILLE, AR., MUNICIPAL CODE, § 6.04.12 (2010)

In Batesville, Arkansas, pit bull dogs are banned and may not be owned or kept within the City, with exceptions for dogs that were licensed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. In this case, the owner must provide proof of sterilization, rabies vaccination, liability insurance of $100,000, and keep the dog properly confined and display a “Beware of Dog” sign.

Local Ordinance
AK - Rabies - 7 AAC 27.022. Rabies vaccination and quarantine. Alaska Admin. Code tit. 7, § 27.022 7 AAC 27.022 This Alaska regulation provides that a dog, cat, or ferret is required to be vaccinated for rabies in accordance with schedules in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011. Administrative
Kanab City v. Popowich 194 P.3d 198, (Utah App.,2008) 2008 UT App 337 (2008); 2008 WL 4260702

In this Utah case, the defendant appeals the decision of the district court finding him guilty on four counts of failing to maintain a city dog license and one count of running an illegal kennel. In December 2005, a Kanab City animal control officer responded to numerous complaints of barking dogs at Defendant's residence. This officer observed four dogs over the age of three months on the premises during two separate visits to Defendant's home that month and on subsequent random visits in the following months. On appeal, defendant argued that the city ordinance on which his conviction for operating an illegal kennel is based is unconstitutionally vague. This court disagreed, finding that an ordinary person reading the ordinance would understand that, in order to keep more than two dogs over the age of three months in the same residence, a citizen must register for a kennel permit.

Case
Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dept. of Agric. --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2018 WL 6448635 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2018). 2018 WL 6448635 The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued the Department of Agriculture and its Secretary alleging that the Department's failure to promulgate bird-specific regulations is unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The Plaintiffs sought court-ordered deadlines by which the Department must propose such rules. The Department moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that it is not required by law to promulgate regulations for birds, and that it has not taken a final action reviewable by the court. The District Court ultimately held that, although the Plaintiffs have standing to sue, both of their claims fail. The Department is not required by the Animal Welfare Act to issue avian-specific standards; rather, it must to issue welfare standards that are generally applicable to animals. Secondly, although the Department has not taken any action to develop avian-specific standards, that does not mean that will not do so in the future. The District Court granted the department's motion to dismiss. Case
SIRMANS v. THE STATE 244 Ga. App. 252 (2000)

Criminal defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The motion to suppress was properly denied, because the search was authorized under the "plain view" doctrine and any objections regarding photographs were subsequently waived when they were tendered into evidence without objection. The trial court did not have authority to deprive defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were neglected or abused, because such animals were not contraband or evidence of a crime.

Case
Haberman v. United States 26 Cl. Ct. 1405 (1992) 38 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,420

The U.S. Claims Court upheld its jurisdiction over an action brought by individuals who had their Private Maintenance and Care Agreements (PMCA) revoked by the Bureau of Land Management and their adopted wild horses repossessed when the agency learned that the individuals intended to sell the horses to slaughter once they obtained full legal title to them under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.  The court found that the PMCA agreement constituted a contract between the government and the adopter, and thus that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Though the court noted that individual adopters would have to overcome the suggestion that they violated the terms of the PMCA by intending to sell the horses to slaughter.   

Case

Pages