Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABC- Test | DFthysyhkfhkjdgh | Policy | |||
| Abundant Animal Care, LLC v. Gray | 316 Ga.App. 193 (Ga.App. 2012) | 2012 WL 2125842 (Ga.App.) |
While either shadowing her aunt or during her first day working at the veterinary clinic, the plaintiff was bitten three times by a dog she had taken outside to exercise. Plaintiff subsequently filed numerous claims against the veterinary clinic, including: negligence; negligence per se; nuisance; and violation of a premise liability and a dangerous dog statute. After the lower court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, the defendant appealed to the Georgia appellate court. The appeals court stated that in a dog bite case, the plaintiff needed to produce evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity. Since the plaintiff failed to produce such evidence, the court held the defendant should have been granted a motion for summary judgment on its premise liability, nuisance, dangerous dog statute, and negligence per se claims. As for the negligence claim, the court held the defendant should have been granted a motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff was not aware of internal procedures to protect invitees and because the injuries were not proximately caused by negligent supervision. The lower court's judgment was therefore reversed. |
Case | |
| Access Now, Inc. v. Town of Jasper, Tennessee | 268 F.Supp.2d 973, 26 NDLR P 107 (E.D.Tenn.,2003) | Plaintiffs Access Now, Inc. and Pamela Kitchens, acting as parent and legal guardian on behalf of her minor daughter Tiffany brought this action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against defendant Town of Jasper, Tennessee under the ADA after the town denied her request to keep a keep miniature horse as service animal at her residence. The town's ordinance at issue provided that no person shall keep an enumerated animal within 1000 feet of any residence without a permit from the health officer. The Jasper Municipal Court held a hearing and determined that the keeping of the horse was in violation of the code and ordered it removed from the property. On appeal, this Court found that while the plaintiffs contended that the horse helped Tiffany in standing, walking, and maintaining her balance, Tiffany does not have a disability as defined by the ADA and does not have a genuine need to use the horse as a service animal. Further, the Court found that the horse was not a service animal within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 because the animal was not used in the capacity of a service animal and instead was a companion or pet to Tiffany. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. | Case | ||
| Access to Eagles and Eagle Parts: Environmental Protection v. Native American Free Exercise of Religion | Antonia M. DeMeo | 22 Hastings Const. L.Q. 771 |
This article explores the inherent conflict between the federal laws to protect eagles through the BGEPA, MBTA, and ESA and Native American religious rights. The author finds that the current eagle permit system for Native Americans is incompatible with free exercise of religion. The author concludes that a revamping of the federal eagle permit system as well as the passage of the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act (NAFERA)would help accommodate religious needs of Native Americans. |
Article | |
| Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 7/2021 - Ciudad de México | ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD 7/2021 | Brought by the National Human Rights Commission, this action of unconstitutionality seeks the annulment of Article 10Bis, Section II, Subsection i) of the Animal Protection Law of Mexico City. This provision was added through Decree Number 495, published in the city's Official Gazette on December 16, 2020. The provision at issue allowed the Animal Squad (Brigada Animal) to enter enclosed areas where there was a presumption of animal cruelty without a warrant. The Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN)) invalidated section i), section II, of article 10 Bis of the Animal Protection Law of Mexico City. | Case | ||
| Acción de incumplimiento No. 25000-23-41-000-2023-00292-01- Colombia- Do not publish yet |
Sentencia promulgada por la sala Contencioso-Administrativa del Consejo de Estado en la que se ordena la reglamentación de la ley de fomento apícola de 2022. |
Case | |||
| Accion Penal 20331-2017- 00179, The case of the Fu Yuan Yu Leng 999 | Accion Penal 20331-2017- 00179 | In this case, the environmental authorities of the Galápagos National Park (the Galápagos Islands is an archipelago known for its unique species and marine ecosystems) tracked through the satellite monitoring system the Chinese reefer vessel—Fu Yuan Yu Leng 999—in national waters while it was cruising through the Galápagos marine reserve without the required permit. The park issued an alert to the National Guard, which approached the vessel by water and air. Upon searching the vessel, the authorities found approximately 532 tons of fish that included 7.639 sharks (7207 juveniles or adults, 432 unborn). All shark specimens found on board lacked fins, and nine of the 12 species were protected endangered species. In this case, the National Court of Justice set an exemplary precedent by affirming the lower court decision and ordering the confiscation of the vessel and imposing a 5.9 million dollar fine to be used for the restoration of the damage caused to the Galápagos ecosystem. In addition, the crew members were sentenced to 1–3 years in jail. | Case | ||
| Adams v Reahy | [2007] NSWSC 1276 |
The first respondent claimed that despite their best efforts their dog was unable to gain weight and appeared emaciated. When proceedings were instituted, the first respondent was successful in being granted a permanent stay as the appellant, the RSPCA, failed to grant the first respondent access to the dog to determine its current state of health. On appeal, it was determined that a permanent stay was an inappropriate remedy and that the first respondent should be granted a temporary stay only until the dog could be examined. |
Case | ||
| Adams v. Vance | 187 U.S. App. D.C. 41; 570 F.2d 950 (1977) |
An American Eskimo group had hunted bowhead whales as a form of subsistence for generations and gained an exemption from the commission to hunt the potentially endangered species. An injunction was initially granted, but the Court of Appeals vacated the injunction because the interests of the United States would likely have been compromised by requiring the filing of the objection and such an objection would have interfered with the goal of furthering international regulation and protection in whaling matters. |
Case | ||
| Adding a Bit More Bite: Suggestions for Improving Animal-Protection Laws in Minnesota | Corwin R. Kruse | 34 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1405 (2008) |
This article provides an overview of current Minnesota laws regarding animal abuse and suggestions to future reforms in the laws. Specifically, the author suggests the creation of provisions related to cruelty in the presence of a child, animal hoarding, restrictions on ownership of animals, protective orders, mandatory reporting, expanded training for law enforcement, and civil enforcement of anti-cruelty laws. |
Article |