Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Herbert | 549 U.S. 1245 (2007) | 450 F.3d 1082 (S.Ct. 2007) |
Motion of Western Wildlife Conservancy, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. |
Case |
| Campbell v. Supervalu | 2007 WL 891682 (N.D.Ind.) | North District Court of Indiana dismissed a claim that Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the plaintiff's state law claims. While a past court decision held that FMIA preempted state attempts to regulate meat inspection, this case was distinguishable because the suit focused on an alleged act of negligence that fell outside inspection of meat and because the state is not placing additional or different requirements then those set by FMIA. | Case | |
| LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 | LSA-R.S. 51:771 - 777 | This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. | Statute | |
| SD - Facility dog - 23A-24-10. Certified therapeutic dogs--Definitions | S D C L § 23A-24-10 - 12 | SD ST § 23A-24-10 - 12 | In 2020, South Dakota enacted provisions for the use of "certified therapeutic dogs" for certain witnesses (children or those with developmental disabilities as defined in the law) in criminal proceedings. A certified therapeutic dog is defined as a dog that has received the requisite training or certification and is registered with Therapy Dogs Incorporated, Therapy Dogs International, Assistance Dogs International, or an equivalent organization to perform the duties associated with therapy dogs in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities where the emotional benefits of therapy dogs are recognized. Before using the dog, the party desiring to utilize the presence of a certified therapeutic dog must file a motion containing listed information outside the presence of the jury. A handler may accompany the dog and sit behind or next to the witness stand. | Statute |
| IA - Veterinary Liens - Chapter 581. Veterinarian's Lien | I. C. A. § 581.1 - 4 | IA ST § 581.1 - 4 | This section of Iowa laws relates to veterinary liens related to treatment of livestock. A veterinarian shall have an agricultural lien as provided in section 554.9102 for the actual and reasonable value of treating livestock, including the cost of any product used and the actual and reasonable value of any professional service rendered by the veterinarian. In order to perfect the lien, the veterinarian must file a financing statement in the office of the secretary of state as provided. “Livestock” means an animal belonging to the bovine, caprine, equine, ovine, or porcine species, ostriches, rheas, emus, poultry, or fish or shellfish. | Statute |
| AK - Hunting - § 16.05.797. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited | AS § 16.05.797 | AK ST § 16.05.797 | This law makes it a class A misdemeanor to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or or provide or operate a facility for computer-assisted remote hunting in Alaska. | Statute |
| MARILYN DANTON v. ST. FRANCIS 24 HOUR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, P.C. a Washington professional services corporation (UBI 602-029-072); an | This Washington case involves plaintiff's suit against defendant animal hospital for the escape of her cat while the cat was being boarded at the hospital. Plaintiff sued for simple negligence with a presumption of res ipsa loquitur and breach of bailment contract. With regard to damages, plaintiff pleads intrinsic value of "Moochie," which includes as component the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff. Following a six-person jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on her negligence and breach of contract claims in a total amount of $2,500.00 | Pleading | ||
| Missouri v. Holland | 40 S.Ct. 382 (1920) | 252 U.S. 416 (1920) |
This was a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. While the court recognized the states' province to act in traditional matters of fish and game, the migratory nature of wild birds makes them the proper subject of treaty. As noted by the Court, "[t]he subject matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein." The Court found the treaty was a proper exercise of constitutional authority where a national interest was implicated (i.e., "the protectors of our forests and our crops") and could only be protected by national action in concert with another power. |
Case |
| HAGEN v. LAURSEN | 263 P.2d 489 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953) | 121 Cal.App.2d 379 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953) |
Two Irish setters knocked down a neighbor while playing outside. Previously no one had seen them run into anyone while playing. They were not shown to have been more boisterous than dogs usually are. There was no evidence that these dogs were vicious. The court found that there was no foreseeable risk of harm and therefore no duty upon which to base a claim of negligence. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995 | The Act amends the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. While the 1976 Act prohibited the slaughter of cows, the Amendment additionally prohibits the slaughter of bulls and bullocks. | Statute |