Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6636
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winingham v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. | 859 F.Supp. 1019 (1994) |
Ostrich owners sued to recover actual and exemplary damages, attorney fees, costs and interests for gross negligence after an airship flew over their property at low altitude, which frightened interfered with the ostriches’ breeding. The District Court held that: (1) allegations of fright and temporary loss of libido failed to allege compensable injury absent proof of physical injury; and (2) owners were not entitled to recover speculative value of unborn offspring; and (3) absent actual damages, exemplary damages could not be awarded. |
Case | ||
| MO - Veterinary - 20 CSR 2270-6.011 Rules of Professional Conduct | 20 MO ADC 2270-6.011 | 20 Mo. Code of State Regulations 2270-6.011 | Subsection 11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for veterinarians provides that a licensee shall not reveal confidential, proprietary or privileged facts or data or any other sensitive information contained in a patient's medical records without the prior consent of the client except as otherwise authorized or required by law, regulation, or other order. The subsection specifically states that "[w]hen these situations [of abuse and neglect] cannot be resolved through education, the board considers it the responsibility of the veterinarian to report such cases to the appropriate authorities." Thus, the rule seems to create an ethical responsibility that mandates the reporting of abuse or neglect by veterinarians. | Administrative | |
| Salzer v. King Kong Zoo | 773 S.E.2d 548 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | 242 N.C. App. 120, 2015 WL 4081841 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | The Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 2014, Plaintiffs filed a civil suit under North Carolina's anti-cruelty "citizen suit" provision, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1, against King Kong Zoo. Plaintiffs contended that the zoo kept animals in "grossly substandard" conditions. King Kong Zoo is an Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) licensed exhibitor of wild and domestic animals. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the applicable law here is the AWA and “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1 ... has no application to licensed zoo operations.” On appeal, this Court found in a matter of first impression that the AWA does not expressly preempt claims under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A. Instead, the AWA "empowers Section 19A to work in conjunction with the AWA." The Court also found no conflict of law that would preclude bringing the action. The matter was reversed and remanded to the Cherokee County District Court for determination consistent with this opinion. | Case | |
| FL - Sterilization - Chapter 823. Public Nuisances | West's F. S. A. § 823.15 | FL ST § 823.15 | This Florida law declares that it is the public policy of the state that every feasible means be used to reduce the incidence of birth of unneeded and unwanted puppies and kittens. In furtherance of this policy, provision shall be made for the sterilization of all dogs and cats sold or released for adoption from any public or private animal shelter or animal control agency by either providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal or entering into a written agreement with the adopter or purchaser guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed within 30 days or prior to sexual maturity. All costs of sterilization pursuant to this section shall be paid by the prospective adopter unless otherwise provided for by ordinance of the local governing body or provided for by the humane society governing body. | Statute | |
| CA - Veterinary - Chapter 11. Veterinary Medicine. | West's Ann. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 4800 - 4920_8 | CA BUS & PROF § 4800 - 4920.8 | 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 | |
| Hendricks v. Barlow | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) |
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property. The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law. However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances. The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption by state and federal law should not have been found. Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted. |
Case | |
| IN RE: ROSIA LEE ENNES | 45 Agric. Dec. 540 (1986) | 1986 WL 74679 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $1,000 against unlicensed dealer was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b), and greater penalty could have been requested where although moderate size of kennel suggested modest penalty, selling hundreds of dogs without license over 40-month period was grave violation of Animal Welfare Act, violations were not committed in good faith since dogs were knowingly and intentionally sold without license after receiving 4 warnings, and even though dealer thought mistakenly that Department would not prosecute her for such violations and there was no history of previous violations, the hundreds of violations proven were sufficient to warrant severe sanction. | Case | |
| Brown v. State | 166 So. 3d 817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 72231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) | Defendant was found guilty of felony cruelty to animals after a Chow mix was found near defendant's mobile home emaciated and suffering from several long-term conditions that had gone untreated. Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Pasco County and was sentenced to six months of community control followed by three years of probation. She timely appealed, raising several arguments. The District Court of Florida affirmed the trial court’s decision, writing only to address her claim that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because a felony conviction for animal cruelty Florida Statutes could not be based on an omission or failure to act. In doing so, the court noted that a defendant could be properly charged with felony animal cruelty under this version of the Florida statute for intentionally committing an act that resulted in excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal by failing to provide adequate food, water, or medical treatment. The court then held that sufficient evidence existed showing that defendant owned a dog and failed, over a period of more than one year, to provide adequate food, water and needed medical care. | Case | |
| MD - Housing - Subtitle 8. Pet Protections | MD Code, Real Property, § 14-801 - 806 | MD REAL PROP § 14-801 - 806 | This subtitle applies to an action for possession of real property filed on or after November 1, 2023. In addition, by October 1, 2023, the Department of Agriculture shall develop and publish on its website a fact sheet that provides information about how a person may care for and protect any pets in the event the person is evicted or loses possession of the person's property. When possession of real property is delivered to a landlord following an eviction or other described action, law enforcement or other official must immediately inspect the premises for any pet and provide that pet to the tenant. If the tenant is not present, that official must contact an animal shelter or animal rescue to take possession of the pet along with contact information of the former tenant. | Statute | |
| CT - Horse Meat - § 21a-22. Sale of equine meat in public eating places | C. G. S. A. § 21a-22 | CT ST § 21a-22 | This Connecticut law states that a public eating place shall not sell or offer equine meat without without indicating such contents of each item in print. Any person, or the responsible agent of any firm or corporation, who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both. | Statute |