Results

Displaying 5891 - 5900 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
LA - Veterinary - Veterinarians. LSA-R.S. 37:1511 - 70 These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. Statute
DE - Hunting - § 739. Prohibitions respecting bald eagles; disturbing, damaging or destroying nests; eggs; penalties 7 Del.C. § 739 DE ST TI 7 § 739 Delaware law makes it a Class A environmental misdemeanor to disturb or damage the nest or eggs of a bald eagle or to kill or possess a bald eagle. It is also prohibited to barter and trade in bald eagles or their parts. Statute
State v. Ziemann 705 N.W.2d 59 (Neb.App.,2005) 14 Neb. App. 117

The petitioner-defendant challenged her criminal conviction for cruelly neglecting several horses she owned by asserting that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. However, the court of appeals side stepped the petitioners claim that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a farmstead, that she did not own or reside on, because she leased the grass on the farmstead for a dollar by invoking the “open fields” doctrine.    The court held that even if such a lease might implicate the petitioners Fourth Amendment rights in some circumstances, the petitioner here was only leasing a open field, which she cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy in.

Case
Pless v. State 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006) 2006 WL 1237027 (Ga.App.), 279 Ga.App. 798 (2006) In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court found that the evidence showed that in the months prior to the July 14 and August 1 incidents, Pless's dogs were repeatedly found loose in neighbors' yards and garages. Accordingly, evidence supported the conviction on the charge of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance under § 3-4-7(5). ("Public nuisance" is defined, among other things, as any animal which "[i]s found repeatedly at large."). On certiorari review, the Georgia Supreme Court in State v. Pless, 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007) reversed judgment of Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App. 2006), and the case was then sent to Pless v. State, 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007) on remand. Case
Ohio v. George 2014-Ohio-5781 (App. Ct, 2014) Clayton George was convicted of raping two children of his girlfriend, age six and eight at the time of the crime. Among assignments of error on appeal was that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing Avery, a facility dog, to accompany the two children during their testimony without a showing of necessity. On appeal, the defense argued that (1) unlike the facility dogs in Tohom, Spence, and Dye, Avery was “recognizable on the record while he was in court,” (2) the prosecution failed to show necessity for having Avery at trial, and (3) the standards set in Tohom, Spence, and Dye should have applied to determine whether Avery was permitted at trial. The appellate court noted that the defense had not objected to the presence of the dog during the trial nor had he made these three points at trial, meaning that the appellate court did not need to consider them for the first time on appeal under Ohio appellate law. The assignments of error were all overruled and the judgement of the trial court was affirmed. Case
IA - Dog Licenses - 351.26. Right and duty to kill untagged dog I. C. A. § 351.26 IA ST § 351.26 This Iowa statute makes it lawful for any person to kill a dog that is required to wear a rabies vaccination tag and is found not wearing one. Further, it is the duty of all peace officers within their respective jurisdictions unless such jurisdiction has provided for the seizure and impoundment of dogs, to kill these untagged dogs. Statute
CA - Racing - § 597h. Live animals; attaching to power propelled device to be pursued by dogs West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597h CA PENAL § 597h This statute makes it unlawful to tie, attach, or fasten any live animal to any machine or device propelled by any power for the purpose of causing such animal to be pursued by a dog or dogs. Statute
American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Lynn 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989)

This is an appeal by American Dog Owners Association from a judgment upholding two of three city of Lynn ordinances which restrict ownership of certain dogs within the city limits. The lower court found that one of three animal control ordinances regulating “pit bulls” was unconstitutional. First, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the first two ordinances were repealed by passage of third which was intended to treat subject of pit bulls comprehensively. However, the court found that the third ordinance which attempted to define pit bull by breed was unconstitutionally vague. The court stated that, "if identification by breed name does not provide sufficient ascertainable standards for enforcement, then the “definition” of “Pit Bull” in the fourth ordinance, which is devoid of any reference to a particular breed, but relies instead on the even less clear 'common understanding and usage' of the term 'Pit Bull,' is not sufficiently definite to meet due process requirements."

Case
Cornett v. Red Stone Group, Inc. Cornett v. Red Stone Group, 41 N.E.3d 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

Cornett filed suit against Red Stone Group, Inc. alleging negligence and premise liability. Cornett argued that Red Stone Group maintained a defective gate and fence that led to the Red Stone Group's horses escaping and trampling Cornett which caused her serious injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Red Stone Group on the basis of that it was immune from liability under the equine activities statute. Cornett appealed the court’s decision and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Ultimately, the court of appeals needed to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was immune from liability under the statute. In order to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was covered under the statute, the court of appeals looked to the language of the statute. After looking at the language of the statute, the court of appeals found that Cornett was an “equine activity participant” at the time of her injury and therefore Red Stone Group could not be liable for her injuries. Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment for Red Stone Group.

Case
IN RE: STEVEN M. SAMEK AND TRINA JOANN SAMEK 57 Agric. Dec. 185 (1998) 1998 WL 1806357 (U.S.D.A.) Respondent who is unable to afford attorney has no right to have counsel provided by government in disciplinary administrative proceedings conducted under Animal Welfare Act. Case

Pages