Results
Displaying 6581 - 6590 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moreland v. Lowdermilk | 709 F. Supp. 722 (W.D. La. 1989) | This case concerns the untimely death of a female racehorse, whose owners brought this veterinary malpractice action against the veterinarians that treated this mare. Her owners sought reimbursement for her future potential racing earnings, her future potential earnings as a brood mare, and recovery of monies owed for veterinary services rendered. However, the court held that the sole cause of the condition that led to the mare's death was the owner's failure to administer a proper worming program to the mare, not the actions of the veterinarians. The court held that the veterinarians could not have administered treatment to save the mare, and therefore had not committed malpractice. | Case | ||
| FL - Hunting, remote - 68A-4.001. General Prohibitions | 68 FL ADC 68A-4.001 | Rule 68A-4.001, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation prohibits a person from taking or assisting in taking wildlife using a method that involves remote control aiming and discharging of a gun when that person is not physically present at the location of that gun, among other things. | Administrative | |
| Born Free USA v. Norton | 278 F. Supp 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003) | 278 F. Supp 2d 5; 57 ERC 1529 |
The zoo sought to import wild elephants from a foreign country, but advocates contended that the officials did not follow CITES properly for the import. The court held that the advocates failed to show a likelihood of success to warrant preliminary injunctive relief, since no overall detriment to the species was shown. |
Case | |
| ND - Lost Property - CHAPTER 60-01. DEPOSITS - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | NDCC 60-01-34 to 43 | ND ST 60-01-34 to 43 | These statutes comprise North Dakota's lost property provisions. | Statute | |
| HI - Equine Activity Liability Statute | H R S § 663B-1, B-2 | HI ST § 663B-1, B-2 | Hawaii is unique in how it treats liability for injuries incurred during equine activities. The relevant section provides that, in any civil action for injury, loss, damage, or death of an equine participant, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the injury, loss, damage, or death was not caused by the negligence of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or their employees or agents, if the injury, loss, damage, or death was caused solely by the inherent risk and unpredictable nature of the equine. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine or activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |
| WA - Domestic Violence - 26.50.060. Relief--Duration--Realignment of designation of parties--Award of costs, service fees, and a | West's RCWA 26.50.060 | WA ST 26.50.060 | This Washington law reflects the state's provision for protective orders in cases of domestic abuse. In addition to other forms of relief, a court may also order possession and use of essential personal effects. Per subsection (l), personal effects may include pets. The court may order that a petitioner be granted the exclusive custody or control of any pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, respondent, or minor child residing with either the petitioner or respondent and may prohibit the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's efforts to remove the pet (see (1)(l)).. The court may also prohibit the respondent from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of specified locations where the pet is regularly found. | Statute | |
| KY - Hunting - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. | KRS § 150.710; 150.990 | KY ST § 150.710; 150.990 | This law comprises Kentucky's hunter harassment law. The law states that no person shall intentionally obstruct or disrupt the right of a person to lawfully take wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing. It also provides that the state attorney general or any person directly affected by the unlawful conduct may bring an action to restrain such conduct or to recover damages. | Statute | |
| Sentencia SU056/18 | Sentencia SU056/18 | The Constitutional Court held unconstitutional the decision of the administrative tribunal of Cundinamarca that allowed the city of Bogota to carry out a popular consultation intended to ask residents of Bogota whether they agreed to have bullfighting in the city. The court held that the decision to invalidate such a ruling was based on the principles of legal precedent and res jusdicata. The administrative court decision was against authority established in decisions A-025 of 2015, T-296 of 2013, C-889 of 2012, y C-666 of 2010 of the constitutional court, which held that the power to prohibit bullfighting rest in Congress and local governments only have police power. Allowing a mayor to carry out a popular consultation regarding the future of bullfighting is to go against authority established by the Constitutional Court, and it violates the right to due process and the right to be treated equally by the law. | Case | ||
| Animal Protection Institute of America, Inc. v. Hodel | 671 F.Supp. 695 (D.Nev.,1987) | 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,398 |
In this case, animal protection groups sued the Secretary of the Interior to enjoin or restrain him from allowing the adoptions of wild horses and burros under circumstances where the defendants know the horses are being adopted for commercial slaughter or exploitation. Defendants opposed the motion and and argued that the Secretary has duly promulgated regulations permitting adoptions of such animals and provided that the animals are humanely cared for during the one year period provided for in 16 U.S.C. § 1333(c). This Court granted plaintiffs' motion, enjoining the Secretary from transferring the titles of wild free-roaming horses and burros to individuals who have, prior to the expiration of the one year “probationary period” expressed to the Secretary an intent to use said animals for commercial purposes. |
Case | |
| Death of the Monkey Ovechkin at Augusta University |
|
Policy |