Results

Displaying 61 - 70 of 6018
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
CO - Emergency - § 25-3.5-203. Emergency medical service providers--certification--renewal of certificate--duties of department--rules C. R. S. A. § 25-3.5-203 CO ST § 25-3.5-203 This law concerns emergency medical service providers. An emergency medical service provider may provide preveterinary emergency care to dogs and cats to the extent the provider has received commensurate training and is authorized by the employer to provide the care. Requirements governing the circumstances under which emergency medical service providers may provide preveterinary emergency care to dogs and cats may be specified in the employer's policies governing the provision of care. “Preveterinary emergency care” means the immediate medical stabilization of a dog or cat by an emergency medical service provider, in an emergency to which the emergency medical service provider is responding, through means including oxygen, fluids, medications, or bandaging, with the intent of enabling the dog or cat to be treated by a veterinarian. “Preveterinary emergency care” does not include care provided in response to an emergency call made solely for the purpose of tending to an injured dog or cat, unless a person's life could be in danger attempting to save the life of a dog or cat. Statute
Crump v Equine Nutrition Systems Pty Ltd t/as Horsepower [2006] NSWSC 512

The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased horse feed from the first respondent and that the feed was contaminated with monensin. The second respondent manufactured the feed. They claimed that as a result, one of their horses died and five others were permanently injured so that they could not be used for the desired purpose. After addressing several factual issues, the trial judge found for the plaintiffs in regards to the issue of negligence by the second respondent and proceeded to assess damages with regard to the economic value of the horses to the plaintiffs, the cost of replacement, loss of profits and maintenance.

Case
Trautman v. Day 273 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1979)

In Trautman v. Day, 273 N.W. 2d 712 (N.D. 1979), defendant shot plaintiff’s dog when it ran through defendant’s herd of cows. The court affirmed a verdict of $300 for plaintiff’s dog. In addition, the Court declined to apply the defense of immunity based on a statute concerning the “worrying of livestock.

Case
LA - Disaster Planning - State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan State of Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan

Louisiana's Emergency Operations Plan addresses pets and service animals in several places. The parish office of homeland security and emergency preparedness must make an EOP that includes "temporary sheltering of service animals and household pets in times of emergency or disaster." Addtionally, under Emergency Support Function (ESF) #6, the "Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry (LDAF) will provide for the safety and well-being of household pets and service animals during evacuations and sheltering." Finally, under ESF #11, the plan "outlines how LDAF will initiate a state response to an emergency or disaster affecting agriculture, food, household pets . . ." and indicates that "the LDAF Emergency Programs Director will work with animal planning authorities in each parish to arrange for the humane evacuation, transport, and temporary sheltering of service animals and household pets that need assistance."

Administrative
MI - Lost Property - Chapter 434. Lost and Unclaimed Property. Lost Property. M. C. L. A. 434.21 - 29 MI ST 434.21 - 29

This section comprises Michigan's Lost Property statutes.

Statute
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture 60 F.Supp.3d 14 (D.D.C. 2014) On December 16, 2013, this Court issued an Opinion that dismissed a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals alleging that the United States Department of Agriculture had unlawfully failed to implement the Animal Welfare Act with respect to birds. The Court found that the actions PETA sought to compel USDA to take—promulgating bird-specific regulations and enforcing the AWA against bird abusers—were committed to the agency's discretion by law. On January 13, 2014, PETA moved for reconsideration of the second part of that decision. PETA also asked, in the alternative, for leave to amend its Complaint. The government opposed both requests. Because the Court stands by its initial conclusions, and because leave to amend was not allowed at this juncture, it denied PETA's Motion. This case was appealed, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir., 2015). For a prior District Court case, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) Case
City of Sausalito v. Brian O'Neill 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

In considering standing under the MMPA, the court found that the plaintiff city had only pure economic injury and had not shown that any harm would result to marine mammals protected under the MMPA. 

Case
SC - Fur - Article 12. Trapping Furbearing Animals, Regulation of Dealers, Buyers, Processors, Code 1976 § 50-11-2400 - 2575 SD ST § 50-11-2400 - 2575

In South Carolina, a state hunting license and a commercial fur license are required to sell or take   furbearing animals for commercial purposes. Trappers may only set traps during trapping season, must show proof of ownership of property or permission to use property where traps are set, must visit his traps daily, and remove any animals caught in the trap. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor, which may result in a fine, imprisonment, and/or revocation of a license.

Statute
Scotland - Dogs, microchip - The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 2016 No. 58 Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. Statute
OR - Exotic Pets - Division 11. Livestock Health and Sanitation. Exotic Animals OR ADC 603-011-0700 to 0725 OAR 603-011-0700 to 0725

This set of regulations includes the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s rules governing the possession of non-human primates. Individuals wishing to possess a non-human primate must be qualified by experience and education, have an approved facility, and must obtain an exotic animal permit from the Department. All permittees must comply with the agency’s rules for the housing and care of non-human primates and any additional permit conditions that the Department imposes.

Administrative

Pages