Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 5880
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Rowbotham v. Maher 658 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995)

The plaintiff argues that G.L. 1956 (1987 Reenactment) § 4-13-16 permits recovery for indirect injuries, specifically including emotional trauma resulting from the destruction of property, in this instance the destruction of plaintiff's dog by two other dogs.  The court disagrees, finding that under § 4-13-16, a person may recover damages in a civil action from a dog owner where the dog causes an injury to a person or to another domestic animal, and nothing in the statute permits recovery for emotional trauma.  With regard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the court notes that in this jurisdiction a third party may recover if, inter alia, the party is a close relative of the victim, which was not the case here. 

Case
PA - Kennels - § 551. Nuisances and injunction 3 P.S. § 551 PA ST 3 P.S. § 551

This Pennsylvania statute provides that the owners or operators of licensed dog training areas shall not be subject to any action for nuisance, and no court in this Commonwealth shall enjoin the use or operation of training areas on the basis of noise or noise pollution, provided that the owners were and remain in compliance with any applicable noise control laws or ordinances at the time the permit for establishment of the training areas was authorized.

Statute
NH - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws N.H. Rev. Stat. § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a NH ST § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

Statute
LA - Equine Activity Liability - § 2795.1. Limitation of liability of farm animal activity LSA-R.S. 9:2795.1 - 9:2795.3

The Louisiana law regarding equine activity liability is divided into two sections; one related to "farm animal activity" and one specific to "equine activity sponsors."  Both statutes have identical terms, save for the animal to which the statute pertains.  Under both, engaging in the farm animal or equine activity does not include being a spectator at a farm animal activity, except in cases where the spectator places himself in an unauthorized area and in immediate proximity to the farm animal or equine activity.  The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law and any written contracts must include the statutory language provided.  Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning notices provided prevents a farm animal activity sponsor or equine sponsor from invoking the privilege of immunity provided by this section.

Statute
Winingham v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 859 F.Supp. 1019 (1994)

Ostrich owners sued to recover actual and exemplary damages, attorney fees, costs and interests for gross negligence after an airship flew over their property at  low altitude, which frightened interfered with the ostriches’ breeding. The District Court held that: (1) allegations of fright and temporary loss of libido failed to allege compensable injury absent proof of physical injury; and (2) owners were not entitled to recover speculative value of unborn offspring; and (3) absent actual damages, exemplary damages could not be awarded.

Case
GOODWIN v. E. B. NELSON GROCERY CO. 132 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1921) 239 Mass. 232 (1921)

Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious.

Case
Gibson v. Babbitt 223 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000)

Defendant, a Native American, challenged the constitutionality of the limitation of eagle parts through the permit system to members of federally recognized tribes.  The limitation under the federal eagle permit system to federally recognized Indian tribes does not violate RFRA because the government has a compelling interest in protecting a species in demise and fulfilling pre-existing trust obligations to federally-recognized tribes in light of the limited supply of eagle parts.  For further discussion on free exercise challenges under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Case
MN - Hunting - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. M. S. A. § 97A.105 MN ST § 97A.105

In Minnesota, there are license requirements for breeding fur-bearing animals, game birds, bear, and mute swans. Fox and mink may not be bought or sold for breeding unless they have been pen-bred for at least two generations. Live beaver may not be transported without a permit. A violation may result in all animals being confiscated. It is not necessary to have a license to purchase live game birds or their eggs if the birds are released, consumed, or processed within one year.

Statute
IA - Dangerous - Chapter 717F. Dangerous Wild Animals I. C. A. § 717F.1 - 13 IA ST § 717F.1 - 13

This Iowa set of laws concerns the keeping of dangerous wild animals. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person shall not own or possess a dangerous wild animal or cause or allow a dangerous wild animal owned by a person or in the person's possession to breed. Further, a person shall not transport a dangerous wild animal into this state. There is a grandfather provision that allows a person who owns or possesses a dangerous wild animal on July 1, 2007 to continue to own or possess the dangerous wild animal subject the provisions of the laws. A person owning or possessing a dangerous wild animal who violates a provision of this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of not less than two hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars for each dangerous wild animal involved in the violation.

Statute
IN RE: ROSIA LEE ENNES 45 Agric. Dec. 540 (1986) 1986 WL 74679 (U.S.D.A.) Civil penalty of $1,000 against unlicensed dealer was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b), and greater penalty could have been requested where although moderate size of kennel suggested modest penalty, selling hundreds of dogs without license over 40-month period was grave violation of Animal Welfare Act, violations were not committed in good faith since dogs were knowingly and intentionally sold without license after receiving 4 warnings, and even though dealer thought mistakenly that Department would not prosecute her for such violations and there was no history of previous violations, the hundreds of violations proven were sufficient to warrant severe sanction. Case

Pages