Results

Displaying 6581 - 6590 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Krasnecky v. Meffen 777 N.E.2d 1286 (Mass.App.Ct.,2002) 56 Mass.App.Ct. 418 (Mass.App.Ct.,2002)

In Krasnecky v Meffen , the plaintiffs sought damages for emotional distress, loss of companionship, and society when defendant’s dogs broke into plaintiff’s backyard and killed their seven sheep. The plaintiffs loved their sheep like a parent would love a child, and went so far as to throw birthday parties for them. Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven Wise, Esq., also instructed the court to consult a text on veterinary ethics, which defined companion animals to include the plaintiff’s sheep within the definition. The court did not address the issue concerning the emotional distress claim, but instead stated that the class of persons authorized to recover were “persons” closely related to the injured person. Furthermore, Justice Jacobs noted that it would be irrational for plaintiffs to have greater rights in the case of a companion animal than in a case of the tortious death of an immediate family member.

Case
VA - Fur - § 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty (dog/cat fur prohibition) Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6570 VA ST § 3.2-6570 In Virginia, it is unlawful for any person to kill a domestic dog or cat for the purpose of obtaining the hide, fur or pelt of the dog or cat (subsection E). A violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony. Statute
Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital 293 Or. 543 (Or. 1982) 652 P.2d 318 (Or. 1982)

This court found that there was no common law liability where a tortfeasor's conduct caused a child to lose parental support and care. The court declined to create a new common law cause of action for parental consortium, and suggested that it was up to the legislature to create such a cause of action. However, dicta in the case refers to an invasion of the animal/animal owner relationship as actionable misconduct.

Case
OK - Endangered Species - Part 4. Protected Game 29 Okl. St. Ann. 5-402, 412, 412.1; 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 2-109, 135 OK ST T. 29 § 5-402, 412, 412.1; OK ST T. 29 § 2-109, 135 Under Oklahoma law, no person may possess, hunt, chase, harass, capture, shoot at, wound or kill, take or attempt to take, trap or attempt to trap any endangered or threatened species or subspecies without specific written permission of the Director. Violation incurs a $100 - 1,000 penalty with up to 30 days in jail. Statute
US - Endangered - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of Final Rule 2011 WL 1670025 (F.R.) FR Doc. 2011-10860 (2011)

On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act, 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS. This rule complies with that directive.

Administrative
Brookover v. Roberts Enterprises, Inc. 156 P.3d 1157 (Ariz.App. Div. 1,2007) 215 Ariz. 52 (2007)

Plaintiffs-appellants Brookovers appeal the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Roberts Enterprises, Inc.. The Brookovers claimed that Roberts was negligent in allowing its cow to enter the highway where it collided with the Brookovers' automobile. They contend that they presented evidence that defendants were aware of the risk of significant numbers of collisions between cattle and automobiles when cows were allowed to graze in the vicinity of a paved highway. Here, however, the court stated that the record indicates that the accident involving the Brookovers was the first reported cattle-automobile accident to occur on the Salome Highway through the Clem Allotment since Roberts began to lease the premises. Further, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the inapplicability of res ipsa loquitur based on the Brookovers' inability to establish that the accident is of a type that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence.

Case
Argentina - Farm animals - Ley 3.959, 1900 LEY 3.959 This is the law of the Police for Animal Health. The purpose of this law is to set the parameters to ensure the protection of livestock against contagious exotic diseases. This law regulates topics such as importation and exportation of livestock, prohibiting the importation or exportation of animals infected with contagious diseases or suspected of being infected. Statute
Sherman v. Kissinger 195 P.3d 539 (Wash.,2008) 146 Wash.App. 855 (2008)

A dog owner sued a veterinarian and a veterinary hospital after her dog died. The Court of Appeals held that the medical malpractice act did not apply to veterinarians, and thus, did not bar claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, trespass to chattels, and breach of bailment contract; the three-part analysis in McCurdy controlled the measure of damages and the burden of proof for damages; genuine issues of material fact about the market value of the dog, whether it could be replaced, and whether owner was entitled to present evidence of the dog’s intrinsic value, precluded summary judgment limiting owner's damages; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert’s testimony about the loss of the human-animal bond because owner was not entitled to emotional distress damages; and defendants were not entitled to attorney fees under the small claims statute.

Case
State v. Mortensen 191 P.3d 1097 (Hawai'i App., 2008) 2008 WL 4195895 (Hawai'i App.), 118 Hawai'i 420

Defendant found guilty of Cruelty to Animals under a State statute after firing a pellet gun at/toward a cat which was later found with and died from a fatal wound.   On Defendant’s appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai’i affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that evidence that Defendant knowingly fired the pellet gun at a group of cats within the range of such a gun was sufficient to find that Defendant recklessly shot and killed the cat.   In making its decision, the Court of Appeals further found that the legislature clearly did not intend for a cat to be considered vermin or a pest for purposes of the relevant State anti-cruelty statute’s exception, and instead clearly intended for a cat to be considered a “pet animal.”  

Case
TN - Liens, Veterinary - § 63-12-134. Liens and incumbrances. T. C. A. § 63-12-134 TN ST § 63-12-134 This statute specifically allow vets to hold an animal until a bill is paid for treatment, board or care of an animal. Statute

Pages