Results
Displaying 5981 - 5990 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ducote v. Boleware | 216 So. 3d 934 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), writ denied, 2016-0636 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So. 3d 1071 | 2016 WL 659022 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), | This appeal arises from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Ducote, stemming from injuries she suffered as the result of a bite by defendant's cat. Plaintiff was walking down the sidewalk in New Orleans in the early evening when defendant's cat jumped on her left side and bit her hand causing injury. Plaintiff opted for the rabies immunoglobulin and the vaccine at the emergency room after defendant was unable to produce a rabies certificate (though the cat was later successfully quarantined). The trial court granted summary judgment upon motion for defendant and his homeowner's insurer. Plaintiff now appeals that decision. On appeal, the majority observed that liability of an animal owner (other than a dog) is provided by La. C.C. art. 2321, which gives a negligence standard based on knowledge of an animal's vicious propensities. The court found that there was no scienter on defendant's part as to the cat's dangerous nature (in fact, the cat was known to be a friendly cat with no previous incidents). Plaintiff suggests that liability should be based on a theory of negligence per se. Due to defendant's violation of city ordinances related to proof of rabies vaccination, he should be liable for damages. The court, however, rejected this, as Louisiana law does not recognize statutory negligence per se. Instead, in looking at negligence based on the set of facts, the court found plaintiff did not meet her burden. The trial court's decision was affirmed. | Case | |
| ND - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | ND ADC 87-05-02-01 | NDAC 87-05-02-01 | The following represents unprofessional conduct on behalf of a veterinarian and manifestly disqualifies a licensee from practicing veterinary medicine. Paragraph (9) states that failing to report inhumane treatment to animals, including staged animal fights or training events for fights, the veterinarian reasonably believed occurred constitutes unprofessional conduct. | Administrative | |
| CT - Endangered Species - CHAPTER 495. ENDANGERED SPECIES | C. G. S. A. § 26-303 - 317 | CT ST § 26-303 - 317 | These statutes provide Connecticut's endangered species provisions. Included are the findings and policy, definitions, acquisition and management of habitat, and penalties for taking of listed species. The statute also has a provision specific to elephant ivory. | Statute | |
| Riley v. Riley | 131 So.2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961) |
Trial court ordered husband and father, in divorce decree, to maintain his life insurance policy naming his children as beneficiaries; he appealed. Appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. Appellate court upheld original decree, which also vested in the wife title to "some poodle dogs." |
Case | ||
| Fabrikant v. French | 691 F.3d 193 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2012) | 2012 WL 3518527 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2012) |
After multiple negative reports came in about the living conditions of her animals, an animal rescue organization seized many of the plaintiff-appellant's dogs; she was then charged with five counts of animal cruelty, but was later acquitted at a state trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant and her state trial attorney filed a federal civil rights suit against the animal organization and others. After losing at the district level, on the first appeal, and on remand from the first appeal, the plaintiff-appellant appealed the case for a second time. On this appeal, the Second Circuit held that though the animal organization was a state actor, it had qualified immunity, which protected it from the plaintiff-appellant’s charges. Additionally, the court held that investigator’s had probable cause to seize the dogs, which also defeated the plaintiff-appellant’s charges. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed, but for different reasons. |
Case | |
| UT - Eggs - Chapter 4A. Confinement of Egg-Laying Hens | U.C.A. 1953 §§ 4-4a-101 - 107 | Utah Code Ann. §§ 4-4-101 - 108 (West) | These Utah laws render the use of battery cages to house egg-laying hens unlawful in the state. Under these laws, egg-laying hens must be housed with a certain amount of usable space. Egg-laying hens must also be allowed to engage in natural behaviors, such as dust bathing. Certain exceptions apply, such as for veterinary care. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert | 2013 WL 4017889 (D. Utah July 22, 2013) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other plaintiffs challenged Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112, which criminalizes recording images or sounds at industrialized farming operations, and entering industrialized farming operations by false pretenses or misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs alleged that § 76-6-112 violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not suffered actual harm, and thus did not have standing. The U.S. District Court Judge dismissed some Plaintiffs from the case, but allowed it to move forward. | Case | ||
| Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Austin | 55 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (D. Mont. 2014) | 2014 WL 5439589 | Plaintiff challenged the defendants' approval of the Rennic Stark Project in the Ninemile Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Project proposed a host of forest management measures. Under the National Environmental Protection Act, the defendant published an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the project in November 2012. The EA discussed the likely effects of the project on a number of wildlife species, including the ESA-listed threatened Canada lynx, the Forest Service-sensitive fisher, the Forest Service-sensitive North American wolverine, goshawk, and westslope cutthroat trout. The defendant signed and issued a Decision Notice adopting Alternative 2 from the EA, as well as a Finding of No Significant Impact. Plaintiff timely appealed the defendant's decision, but the defendant denied the appeal. Plaintiff then filed its complaint in this court and moved for summary judgment. Defendants filed their cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied on all claims and defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on all claims. | Case | |
| CA - Pigs, Wild - Chapter 7. Wild Pigs | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4650 - 4657 | CA FISH & G § 4650 - 4657 | These provisions make it unlawful to take any wild pig in California without first procuring a license tag authorizing the taking. These sections outline the requirements for licenses and require plans for the management of wild pigs. Under these plans, the status and trend of wild pig populations are determined and management units shall be designated within the state. | Statute | |
| LEE ROACH AND ROACH LABORATORIES, INC. | 51 Agric. Dec. 252 (1992) | 1992 WL 142012 (U.S.D.A.) | Company which produces antiserum for medical diagnostic tests by injecting rabbits and other live animals with antigens and then extracting their blood is research facility within meaning of Act. | Case |