Results
Displaying 5991 - 6000 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 23.094, 1984 | Ley Nacional 23.094/84 | This law declares the southern right whale a natural monument within Argentine jurisdictional waters and subject to the rules established by Law No. 22.351, which regulates the concerning procedures for the declaration of national parks, natural monuments, and national reserves. | Statute | |
| AL - Fish and Wildlife - Article 3. Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-2-60 - 67 | AL ST § 9-2-60 to 67 | This set of laws establishes the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries within the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and outlines the powers and duties of various officials within that division. | Statute |
| ELLIS v. OLIPHANT | 141 N.W. 415 (1913) | 159 Iowa 514 (1913) |
Plaintiff's dog was killed by defendant after defendant set traps out on his farm to catch the dogs that had been injuring his sheep. There was no claim that plaintiff's dog was caught in the act of chasing or worrying sheep. There was testimony at trail that showed plaintiff's dog was a very valuable one, highly trained, and greatly efficient about the farm; some of the witnesses testifying that he was worth at least $200. The trial court instructed the jury that defendant had no right, under the circumstances shown, to trap and shoot the dog, and the case was submitted to the jury for it to find the value of the dog. This reviewing court found no error and affirmed the judgment for the value of the dog, which was above traditional market value. |
Case |
| SD - Lost Property - Chapter 43-41. Lost and Found Property. | SDCL § 43-41-1 - 11 | SD ST § 43-41-1 - 11 | These statutes comprise South Dakota's lost property provisions. | Statute |
| Strickland v. Pinellas Cty. | --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 6518761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2018) | Andy G. Strickland appealed an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint for declaratory relief against Pinellas County. The request stems from letters he received from Animal Services of Pinellas County about his dog. Strickland and a neighbor were involved in a dispute after their dogs attacked each other. The neighbor filed a complaint with Animal Services claiming that Strickland's dog was the "aggressor dog" and then sent a letter to the Pinellas County Board of Commissioners. The County then sent two letters to Strickland, the first informing him that his dog had exhibited dangerous propensities, and the second, from an assistant county attorney, informing him of the possible criminal ramifications for keeping a dangerous dog or being an "Irresponsible Pet Owner" under the county code. As a result of these letters, Strickland filed a complaint in circuit court saying that he was not afforded any opportunity to dispute those claims and that he is entitled to have the threat of criminal prosecution removed. The County moved to dismiss Strickland's complaint arguing that he failed to allege a justiciable controversy and a bona fide dispute between the County and him. The County claimed that there were no legal findings made with respect to Strickland's dog and that the letters were possible ramifications and explanations of law. The trial court agreed and granted the County's motion, finding the letters were not accusatory and the case presented no justiciable issue. On appeal here, this court upheld the lower court's order because Strickland's allegations did not present a bona fide dispute. Both letters emphasized that his dog had not been classified as dangerous and that no action was being taken by the county. A speculative fear by Strickland that he may be subject to future consequences does not warrant declaratory relief and does not show imminent danger of prosecution. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed Strickland's complaint. Affirmed. | Case | |
| CA - Entertainment - Title 4. Motion Pictures (use of animals) | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3504 - 3508.2 | CA CIVIL § 3504 - 3508.2 | This section of laws provides that it is a nuisance to exhibit a motion picture that depicts any intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal where such intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal actually occurred in the production of the motion picture for the purpose of such production created after January 1, 1979. An action may be brought to abate and prevent the nuisance by the relevant county's district attorney or the California Attorney General. Any violation or disobedience of an injunction or order expressly provided for by this title is punishable as a contempt of court by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). | Statute |
| Sykes v. Cook Cty. Circuit Court Prob. Div. | 837 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2016), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied (Oct. 27, 2016) | This case dealt with the plaintiff's denial of the use of her service dog while in a courtroom to present a motion. After the denial, the plaintiff filed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action, alleging that there was a violation for denial of reasonable accommodations under the ADA. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, because as a federal court, it was barred from hearing the claim under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. The Court of Appeals agreed, and held that as a federal court, it was barred from hearing the claim under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, which prevents lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state court losers challenging state court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Additionally, the district court held that it should exercise Younger abstention because the proceeding was ongoing and because the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to raise her federal claims about her dog in state court, but the Court of Appeals held that "Younger is now a moot question because there is no ongoing state proceeding for [the Court of Appeals] to disturb." As a result, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was AFFIRMED. | Case | |
| EU - Transport - 2004/544/EC: Council Decision on the signing of the European Convention for the protection of animals during in | 2004/544/EC |
This Council Decision directs the signing the of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport. |
Statute | |
| OR - Equine Liability Act - Chapter 30. Actions and Suits in Particular Cases. Actions Arising Out of Equine Activities. | O. R. S. § 30.687 - 697 | OR ST § 30.687 - 697 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or an equine professional is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, arising out of riding, training, driving, grooming or riding as a passenger upon an equine. However, there are exceptions to this rule: an equine sponsor or professional will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant. | Statute |
| IL - Research - Act 93. Research Dogs and Cats Adoption Act | 510 I.L.C.S. 93/1 - 10 | IL ST CH 510 § 93/1 - 10 | This act, effective January 1, 2018, is entitled the Research Dogs and Cats Adoption Act. Under the act, a research facility shall assess the health of a dog or cat used in research and then make reasonable efforts to offer for adoption a dog or cat determined to be suitable for adoption, either through private placement or through an animal adoption organization. The research facility must have a facility adoption policy that is made available on its website. | Statute |