Results

Displaying 51 - 60 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Wills 360 So.2d 37 (Fla.App.,1978)

Dog owners brought negligence action against veterinarian and animal hospital after their dog suffered injuries while under the veterinarian's and the hospital's care. The Appeals Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to consider plaintiff-owners' mental pain and suffering, and that the jury could reasonably have viewed defendants' neglectful conduct resulting in the dog's injury to have amounted to great indifference to plaintiffs' property.

Case
Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 930 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.D.C. 2013) 2013 WL 1111285 (D.D.C.,2013)

Using the Administrative Procedures Act, the Sierra Club filed a suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) due to the USFWS's response to the Sierra Club's petition to revise critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle; the Sierra Club also charged the USFWS with unlawfully delaying the designation of the Northeastern Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico as critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle. While both sides filed a motion for summary judgment, the District Court only granted the USFWS motion for summary judgment because the USFWS's 12–month determination was unreviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Case
Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc. 271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 203 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2020) This case was brought by the owners of two dogs that were cremated by a private pet cremation company, who allege the cremation service sent them the ashes of random dogs instead of those of their dogs. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract and several tort claims, including trespass to chattel and negligence. On this appeal, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The plaintiffs failed to establish an implied contract between them and the pet cremation company, were granted leave to amend their breach of contract complaint against the company, the other actions for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed, and the court found that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for negligence. Case
Animal Law in Australia

 

Policy
CA - Enforcement - Chapter 5. Arrest, by Whom and How Made. West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 837, 847 CA PENAL § 837, 847 This set of provisions authorizes private citizens to make arrests and explains when and how citizen arrests may be made. Statute
AU - Endangered/Threatened Species - Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TAS) Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

The Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 is an Act to provide for the protection and management of Tasmania’s threatened native flora and fauna, and to enable and promote the conservation of native flora and fauna. The Act provides Schedules of taxa that have different degrees of threatened status. It also establishes mechanisms for the listing and delisting of taxa.

Statute
Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Herbert 549 U.S. 1245 (2007) 450 F.3d 1082 (S.Ct. 2007)

Motion of Western Wildlife Conservancy, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Case
Campbell v. Supervalu 2007 WL 891682 (N.D.Ind.) North District Court of Indiana dismissed a claim that Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the plaintiff's state law claims. While a past court decision held that FMIA preempted state attempts to regulate meat inspection, this case was distinguishable because the suit focused on an alleged act of negligence that fell outside inspection of meat and because the state is not placing additional or different requirements then those set by FMIA. Case
LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 LSA-R.S. 51:771 - 777 This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. Statute
SD - Facility dog - 23A-24-10. Certified therapeutic dogs--Definitions S D C L § 23A-24-10 - 12 SD ST § 23A-24-10 - 12 In 2020, South Dakota enacted provisions for the use of "certified therapeutic dogs" for certain witnesses (children or those with developmental disabilities as defined in the law) in criminal proceedings. A certified therapeutic dog is defined as a dog that has received the requisite training or certification and is registered with Therapy Dogs Incorporated, Therapy Dogs International, Assistance Dogs International, or an equivalent organization to perform the duties associated with therapy dogs in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities where the emotional benefits of therapy dogs are recognized. Before using the dog, the party desiring to utilize the presence of a certified therapeutic dog must file a motion containing listed information outside the presence of the jury. A handler may accompany the dog and sit behind or next to the witness stand. Statute

Pages