Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Case | ||
| Baker v. Middleton (unpublished opinion) | No. 29D05-0605-SC-1055 (Ind. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2007) | unpublished opinion | In Baker , the defendant fed and watered four cats that lived in the neighborhood. These cats damaged the plaintiff’s home, destroying insulation, a vapor barrier, and duct work. The cats also urinated and defecated in the crawl space of the home. In the Superior Court, the plaintiff argued that a town ordinance and a county ordinance independently imposed a duty on the defendant to control the cats and prevent them from damaging the plaintiff's property. The court found, however, that since the defendant was participating in a Trap Neuter and Release program, the county ordinance could not serve as a basis for finding that the defendant was negligent in caring for the feral cats. The court went on to reject two alternative theories of negligence also proffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had therfore failed to establish that the defendant was negligent in her actions and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. | Case | |
| Baker v. McIntosh | 132 S.W.3d 230 (Ky. 2004) |
Visitor to horse farm brought action for negligence when he was injured by owners colt. Held: the owner had no duty to prevent the colt from falling against the trailer door, nor did he have a duty to warn the visitor of the potential for such an accident to occur. |
Case | ||
| Bailment and Veterinary Malpractice: Doctrinal Exclusivity, of Not? | Katie J.L. Scott | 55 Hastings L.J. 1009 (March, 2004) |
This Note argues that treating bailment and veterinary malpractice as mutually exclusive is neither necessary nor desirable. In doing so, it first gives an overview of animals' status as property, the doctrine of bailment, and veterinary malpractice. Second, the seminal case discrediting bailment in favor of veterinary malpractice, Price v. Brown, [FN6] is discussed. Finally, this Note explores the reasons why bailment and veterinary malpractice should not be treated as mutually exclusive, and why pet owners should be able to recover for negligence by a veterinarian under the doctrine of bailment. |
Article | |
| Bailey v. Veitch | 814 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2006) | 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 03192 |
In this New York memorandum opinion, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that fact issues remained as to whether injuries sustained by child were caused by dog, and whether defendants knew or should have known of dog's vicious propensities. At the time of the alleged bite, the four-year-old child was alone in a room with the dog and sustained a gaping laceration on her nose and multiple puncture wounds on her face. The court also determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the dog previously displayed vicious tendencies where the dog bit its owner's grandson on the hand two weeks prior to the instant incident. |
Case | |
| Bacon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ryan | 1995 CarswellSask 540 | [1996] 3 W.W.R. 215, 27 C.C.L.T. (2d) 308, 138 Sask. R. 297 |
The child plaintiff was bitten on the face by a pitbull owned by the defendants, requiring reconstructive surgery and two days hospitalization and causing permanent scarring. The dog had bitten the owner's young son two weeks earlier while he played near the dog's food dish'; they contemplated having the dog euthanized but decided against it. The plaintiff's mother had heard about the bite incident but brought her daughter of the same age as the owner's son to visit, placing her on the floor where the dog bit her shortly after. The judge held that the defendants knew of the dog's propensity to bite young children but kept it ''at their peril" (suggesting strict liability or scienter, which was not however mentioned); such fault was sufficient to make the owners 2/3 liable for the child's $12,000 plastic surgery costs, pain and mental anguish. The plaintiff's mother was held 1/ contributorily liable for letting her child visit and play on the floor near the dog, knowing of its propensity. |
Case | |
| Backyard Breeding: Regulatory Nuisance, Crime Precursor | Lisa Milot | 85 Tenn. L. Rev. 707 (2018) | This Article fills this gap by addressing the problems of unregulated, small-volume dog breeding. Part I provides an overview of the regulatory regimes that govern dog breeding in the United States; an Appendix provides citations to and summaries of the relevant provisions of each state's laws. Part II steps back and describes backyard breeding operations and their harms, including, at times, their role in larger criminal enterprises. Part III reviews literature on the regulation of “low risk” activities and develops a practical, three-step approach to regulating backyard breeding, to efficiently resolve much nuisance-level backyard breeding and illuminate the pernicious breeding. Part IV concludes the Article. | Article | |
| Baby Steps: Minnesota Raises Certain Forms of Animal Cruelty to Felony Status | Corwin R. Kruse | 28 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649 (2002) |
This note begins by tracing the development of anti-cruelty statutes over the last two centuries. Part II discusses the history of anti-cruelty legislation, including the philosophical and socio-historical trends underlying these laws. Part III examines the recent changes to Minnesota's anti-cruelty statute. Part IV analyzes these changes and proposes future modifications. Finally, part V examines current scholarship on animal abuse, discusses why the issue has typically been ignored by society, and poses challenges for the future. |
Article | |
| Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon | 515 U.S. 687 (1995) | 115 S.Ct. 2407, 40 ERC 1897, 132 L.Ed.2d 597, 63 USLW 4665, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,194, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8573, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8575, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8566 (1995) | (edited from Syllabus of the Court) As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to “take” endangered or threatened species, § 9(a)(1)(B), and defines “take” to mean to “harass, harm, pursue,” “ wound,” or “kill,” § 3(19). In 50 CFR § 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.” Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word “take” to include habitat modification. Held: The Secretary reasonably construed Congress' intent when he defined “harm” to include habitat modification. | Case | |
| AZ - Wildlife - Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Article 1. General Regulations | A. R. S. § 17-301 to 320 | AZ ST § 17-301 to 320 | The following statutes comprise Arizona's wildlife code. Among the provisions include methods of taking wildlife, hunting restrictions, the state's hunter interference laws, and laws specific to mountain lions, bears, and jaguars. | Statute |