Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southall v. Gabel | 277 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio App. 1971) | 28 Ohio App.2d 295 (1971) |
This case resulted from the alleged negligent transport of a horse that resulted in a drastic change in the horse's temperament (to a "killer horse"), which ultimately led to its destruction by its owner. Before trial, defendant demurred to plaintiff's petition on the ground that the action was barred under R.C. s 2305.11, the act being 'malpractice' and therefore required to be brought within one year after the termination of treatment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's decision overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's petition was correct, 'the petitioner is based on negligence for the transporting rather than malpractice.' Further, the Court held that until the Supreme Court speaks, veterinarians are not included in the definition of malpractice (reversed and remanded - See , 293 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio, Mun.,1972). |
Case | |
| WA - Rabies - 246-100-197. Rabies--Measures to prevent human disease. | WA ADC 246-100-197 | WAC 246-100-197 | Among other provisions concerning rabies, this Washington regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat, or ferret shall have it vaccinated and revaccinated against rabies following veterinary and USDA-licensed rabies vaccine manufacturer instructions. | Administrative | |
| Tennessee Code: Article V: Cruelty to Animals | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1668-1672 (1858) | Tennessee's laws concerning cruelty to animals from 1858. The laws cover what qualifies as cruelty to animals to the punishment to be given a slave that is cruel to animals. | Statute | ||
| VT - Hunting, contest - § 4716. Coyote-hunting competitions; prohibition | 10 V.S.A. § 4716 | VT ST T. 10 § 4716 | This Vermont law, effective January 1, 2019, prohibits coyote-hunting competitions in the state. A “coyote-hunting competition” means a contest in which people compete in the capturing or taking of coyotes for a prize. Violation incurs a fine of $400 - $1,000 for a first offense. A second or subsequent conviction results in a fine of not more than $4,000.00 nor less than $2,000.00. | Statute | |
| CO - Louisville - § Sec. 6.12.160 Pit bulls prohibited. | Louisville, Colorado Municipal Code, Title 6, § 6.12.160 | This code prohibits ownership of pit bulls within the city and provides certain exceptions. | Local Ordinance | ||
| CT - Oxford - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 92: Right to Farm) | Code of Oxford §§ 92.01 - 92.06 |
According to Oxford, Connecticut's Right to Farm ordinances, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-341, an agricultural or farming operation shall not be deemed a public or private nuisance due to odor emanating from livestock or manure, or due to water pollution caused by livestock. Under these ordinances, a landowner or agent who fails to disclose that a buyer or tenant is about to acquire or occupy property in a town where farming activities occur shall be fined $100. These ordinances also contain exceptions to the nuisance provision, as well as provide a resolution process for any person who seeks to complain about a farm’s operations.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.090. Dangerous dogs--Requirements for restraint | West's RCWA 16.08.090 | WA ST 16.08.090 | This Washington statute outlines the state and local provisions related to dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. It first provides that it is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person. Potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal, and county ordinances and nothing in this section limits restrictions local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute | |
| Dilorenzo v. Costco Wholesale Corp. | 515 F.Supp.2d 1187 (W.D.Wash.) | 2007 WL 2852380 (W.D.Wash.) |
Plaintiff is a disabled individual who suffers from a variety of ailments arising after her service in the armed forces. Plaintiff's claims arise from interactions with Costco store employees on two separate shopping trips with her service dog. Store employees inquired as to what task the dog performed and objected to the dog being carried in plaintiff's arms around the store. Plaintiff brings her claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that Defendant's employees did not exceed the boundaries of a permissible inquiry under the ADA with regard to her service dog, where they never asked Plaintiff to state her disability or demanded proof of special training. |
Case | |
| Re Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts | [2004] AATA 1383 |
The Minister for the Environment approved plans for the 'harvesting' of Kangaroos in South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. The Tribunal found that the killing of joeys, where the mother was also killed, was sanctioned by the Model Code relating to kangaroos and that any licences issued under the plans authorised those killings. The Tribunal found that the likelihood of compliance with the code, which stipulated the manner of killing of kangaroos, would be in the range of 95-99%. The Tribunal approved each of the plans but made a recommendation that future plans should involve a greater element of public consultation. |
Case | ||
| US - Pets and housing - § 5.380 Public housing programs: Procedure for development of pet rules. | 24 C.F.R. § 5.380 | This rule states that Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) must consult with tenants of projects on rules for pets in projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. PHAs shall send to the responsible HUD field office, copies of the final (or amended) pet rules, as well as summaries or copies of all tenant comments received in the course of the tenant consultation. | Administrative |