Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harlow v. Fitzgerald | 457 US 800 (1982) |
Plaintiff brought suit for damages based on his allegedly unlawful discharge from employment in Department of Air Force. U.S. Supreme Court reviewed immunity issues and held that while presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded only where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. |
Case | ||
| VA - Initiatives - Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game | Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game (passed) | This Virginia ballot measure passed in 2000 provided by constitutional amendment that, "The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." It passed with 60% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 9 |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (Brazilian Animal Rights Review)Only in Original PortugueseTable of Contents for Volumes 1- 8
|
Policy | |||
| Zimmerman v. Robertson | 854 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1993) | 259 Mont. 105 (1993) |
Defendant-veterinarian was contracted to castrate plaintiff’s horse. Post-surgical care resulted in a fatal infection of the horse. The court found that, indeed, expert testimony is required in malpractice cases, as negligence cannot be inferred from the existence of a loss. The court disagreed with plaintiff that defendant’s own "admissions" in his testimony at trial provided sufficient evidence of deviation from the standard of care to withstand a directed verdict by defendant. As to plaintiff’s argument regarding a lack of informed consent, the court noted that a medical malpractice claim premised on a theory of lack of informed consent is a separate cause of action rather than an "element" in an otherwise specifically alleged claim of professional negligence. |
Case | |
| Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Unpublished) | 2004 WL 423189 (Conn.Super.,2004) (only Westlaw citation available) |
In this unpublished Connecticut opinion, the defendant-church owned property and leased a portion of the premises to one of its employees, Pedro Salinas. The plaintiff was attacked by a dog, owned by Salinas, while lawfully on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant. On appeal, the court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant-church was a "harborer" of the dog under Connecticut law. Because Salinas and the church had no formal lease agreement, dispute existed as to the exact parameters of Salinas' exclusive control of the premises where his dog roamed. There also existed a material fact regarding the church's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities because it had twice previously attacked a person. (Note the jury trial decision in favor of plaintiff was later overturned in Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church , --- A.2d ----, 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)). |
Case | ||
| OK - Rabies - 310:599-3-9.1. Required immunization of dogs, cats, and ferrets | OK ADC 310:599-3-9.1 | OAC 310:599-3-9.1 | This Oklahoma regulation states that the owner or custodian of a domestic dog, cat, or ferret shall cause the animal to be vaccinated against rabies by the time the animal is four months of age and at regular intervals thereafter according to the label directions of an approved rabies vaccine for use in that species, or as prescribed by ordinances or rules adopted by a municipality within whose jurisdiction the animal owner resides. | Administrative | |
| VA - Resarch animals - Article 13. Animal Research | VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6591 - 6593.2 | VA ST § 3.2-6591 - 6593.2 | This Virginia set of laws, enacted in 2018, relates to animal research. The section states that no manufacturer or contract testing facility shall use an animal test method when an alternative test method is available. The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate circuit court for injunctive relief to enforce the provisions of this article. Any person violating these provisions may result in a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 and any court costs and attorney fees. | Statute | |
| WA - Gold Bar - § Sec. 6.02.019 Foster care or rescue or placement. | § 6.02.019 | This municipal code provides the provisions for foster care or rescue placement program for dogs and cats. The code requires the shelter to maintain records. The code also limits the length of fostering and the number of dogs and cats that an individual may foster at one time. | Local Ordinance | ||
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.070. Dangerous dogs and related definitions | West's RCWA 16.08.070 | WA ST 16.08.070 | This Washington statute provides the definitions related to dangerous dogs, including dangerous dog, potentially dangerous dog, severe injury, and owner, among others. | Statute | |
| WA - Cathlamet - Breed - Chapter 6.10 
PIT BULL DOGS | CATHLAMET, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 6.10.010 - 6.10.030 (1991) |
It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog in Cathlamet, Washington, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of this chapter. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Any pit bull dog found to be the subject of a violation may be confiscated and even destroyed. |
Local Ordinance |