Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Felts (unpublished) | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 124390 (N.D.Iowa) |
Defendant kennel operator was found to violate the AWA on multiple occasions when inspected by APHIS representatives. From 2005 to 2009, defendant repeatedly failed inspections where APHIS found that he provided inadequate veterinary care, did not maintain complete records on the dogs, and did not properly maintain the housing facilities for the dogs. The Administrator of APHIS filed and served on Defendant an administrative complaint for violations. Defendant never filed an answer, and so a Default Decision and Order was entered against Defendant. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part because Defendant failed to file an answer to the administrative complaint, and so was deemed to have admitted the allegations in the complaint. |
Case | ||
| NC - Malpractice - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. | N.C.G.S.A. § 90-21.12 | NC ST § 90-21.12 | This North Carolina statute provides the standard of health care in actions for damages for personal injury or death arising out of medical-based malpractice. Under the statute, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s actions fell below the standards of practice of other health care professionals similarly trained and situated in the same or similar communities. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheri | RIN 0648-AH33 | FR Doc. 04-2981 |
NMFS issued a final rule to implement a new management regime for the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, which was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995. The purpose of this document is to correct an unintended error in the definition of ``negligible impact,'' which provides a reference to a section number of the regulations that has been changed. |
Administrative | |
| State v. Mallory | 83 S.W. 955 (Ark. 1904) | 67 L.R.A. 773, 73 Ark. 236, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 852 |
Defendant was charged with a violation of Arkansas law when he hunted squirrels and took fish from a pond on his own land. The trial court found defendant not guilty. On appeal, the court held that the acquittal was justified. The court rejected the state's argument that it had a proprietary right to all of the wild life in the state. The court found that a property owner had a special property right to take fish and hunt wild game upon his own land, which inured to him by reason of his ownership of the soil. However, the court noted that such a right must yield to the state's ownership and title of the fish and game in the state, which it held for the purposes of regulation and preservation for the public use. The court found that those two rights did not conflict. Therefore, the court held that defendant should have had the same right to hunt and fish on his own land that resident owners of property in the state had to hunt and fish on their own lands. Since the Act differentiated between residents and nonresidents, the court held it was violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
Case | |
| DE - Woodchuck - § 797. Woodchuck or groundhog not protected wildlife | 7 Del.C. § 797 | DE ST TI 7 § 797 | This Delaware statute declares that the woodchuck or groundhog will not be considered protected wildlife. | Statute | |
| Wyno v. Lowndes County | 824 S.E.2d 297 (Ga., 2019), reconsideration denied (Mar. 13, 2019) | 305 Ga. 523 (2019) | Misty Wyno was attacked and killed by a neighbor’s dog. Her husband, Jason Wyno brought a wrongful death action against the dog’s owners, Lowndes County, and four individual Lowndes County Animal Control employees. Jason alleged that Lowndes County and the County Employees negligently failed to perform ministerial duties, negligently failed to provide police protection, negligently created and failed to abate a nuisance, were negligent in their control of allegedly dangerous dogs, and were negligent per se by violating several provisions of the Lowndes County Animal Control Ordinance. Jason also alleged that the County Employees acted with actual malice and/or an intent to injure by repeatedly refusing to investigate or take any action with regards to the dangerous dogs. Lowndes County asserted sovereign immunity as a defense for both itself and its employees. In addition, Lowndes County and the County Employees asserted that they were immune from liability due to the provisions of the Dangerous Dog Control Law in effect at the time. The trial court dismissed the suit against the employees in their individual capacities finding that the Dangerous Dog Control Law barred an action against any party except the dog’s owners. The Supreme Court of Georgia ultimately held that the record was devoid of any evidence that any of the County Employees acted with malice or the intent to harm Jason or Misty Wyno to defeat official immunity. Jason, therefore, did not satisfy his burden and the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. | Case | |
| U.S. v. Guthrie | 50 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 1995) | 50 F.3d 936; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9442; 25 ELR 21097; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed |
The court affirmed the decision of the district court which convicted defendant of violations of the Lacey Act (Act) and the Endangered Species Act. The court held that the Act was not unconstitutional, that defendant was not permitted to collaterally challenge an agency regulation on the grounds of new scientific evidence, and that the Secretary of the Interior's finding that the turtle was a valid species was not arbitrary. |
Case | |
| NY - Service Animal - Chapter 24-A. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107 | NY GEN OBLIG § 11-107 | Under this New York statute, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide guide dog. These damages include veterinarian fees, replacement or retraining costs for the guide dog, lost wages, or damages for loss of mobility during retraining or replacement of the dog. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Corbin Farm Service | 444 F. Supp. 510 (D. Cal. 1978) |
As related to the BGEPA, the opinion distinguishes the degree of intent under the MBTA from that of the BGEPA. It also holds that both statutes were designed to apply to activities outside of traditional scope of hunting and poaching (in this case poisoning of birds). For further discussion on activities such as poisoning and electrocution prohibited under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| MI - Statute of Limitations -Chapter 58. Limitation of Actions | M.C.L.A. 600.5805 | MI ST 600.5805 | This Michigan statute outlines the statute of limitations for injuries to persons or property. Under the statute, actions for malpractice have a two-year statute of limitation. | Statute |