|OH - Emergency - 4765.52 Provision of emergency medical services to dog or cat||R.C. § 4765.52||OH ST § 4765.52||This Ohio statute specifies the emergency treatment that a medical technician or first responder could provide, prior to a dog or cat being transferred to a veterinarian for further treatment. The statute also highlights the immunities that medical responders, directors, and emergency medical service organizations have under the statute, unless they engage in an act or omission while providing medical services to a dog or cat, that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct. The statute also makes clear that a veterinarian who acts in good faith is not liable for any act or omission that occurred prior to the veterinarian providing services to the cat or dog.||Statute|
|Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence||98 F.Supp.3d 408 (D.R.I. 2015)||2015 WL 1474560 (D.R.I. 2015)||Due to public concern about puppy mills, City passed an ordinance banning pet stores located within its limits from selling dogs and cats unless those animals were owned by a city animal shelter or animal control agency, humane society, or non-profit rescue organization and the pet store maintained those animals for the purpose of public adoption. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, a pet store, raised numerous challenges to the ordinance under the Constitutions of the United States and of Rhode Island, claiming that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause, the Contract Clause, the Takings Clause, and Plaintiff's equal protection and due process rights, and that it was preempted by state statute. Plaintiff and Defendant both sought summary judgment to all challenges. Plaintiff's motion was DENIED and Defendant's motion was GRANTED to all counts in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint except Count Three, the Takings claim, which was REMANDED to the Rhode Island Superior Court. (2016: Affirmed in part and appeal dismissed in part at 807 F.3d 415, 417 (1st Cir. 2015)).||Case|
|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).
|National Meat Ass'n v. Harris||32 S.Ct. 965 (2012)||2012 WL 171119 (U.S.)||
Trade association representing packers and processors of swine livestock and pork products sued the State of California for declaratory and injunctive relief barring a ban on slaughter and inhumane handling of nonambulatory animals on federally regulated swine slaughterhouses. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the California Penal Code provision prohibiting the sale of meat or meat product of “nonambulatory” animals for human consumption and requiring immediate euthanization of nonambulatory animals.
|Young's Bus Lines v. Redmon||43 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1931)||
Appellee blind newspaper vendor had a trained seeing eye dog that was run over and killed by a public bus, driven by appellant. The court held that the measure of damages was the market value of the dog at the time and place where it was killed. If the dog had no market value, then the intrinsic or actual value to appellee was the measure of damages.
|Nuzzaci v. Nuzzaci||1995 WL 783006 (Del. Fam. Ct. Apr. 19, 1995) (unpublished opinion).||The court refused to sign a stipulation and order (prepared by the parties and signed by each of them and their attorneys) concerning visitation of the divorcing couple’s dog. The court held that a court can only award dog in its entirety to one party or the other. The court advised the couple to come to their own private agreement instead, reasoning that the court has no jurisdiction in this matter and further no way to side with one party or the other in the event of a future dispute.||Case|
|TX - Initiatives - Proposition 6, Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife||Proposition 6 (2015)||
This proposed constitutional amendment recognizes the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation. It was a legislative referendum originally proposed as Senate Joint Resolution 22 (attached below). The measure passed in November 2015 with 82% of the vote.
|MN - Ivory - 84.0896. Trade in prohibited animal parts prohibited||M. S. A. § 84.0896||MN ST § 84.0896||This Minnesota law, effective January 1, 2020, prohibits the sale of a "prohibited animal part." This is defined as a tooth or tusk from any species of elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth, mastodon, walrus, whale, or narwhal, or any piece thereof, whether raw or worked. Certain exceptions are written into the law including certain antiques (as defined), possession by a bona fide scientific or educational institution, and items expressly authorized under federal law.||Statute|
|IN RE: PET PARADISE, INC.||51 Agric. Dec. 1047 (1992)||1992 WL 240852 (U.S.D.A.)||Where complaint advised respondent of exact matters at issue, there is no basis for dismissing any allegations of complaint merely because they failed to specify subsections of regulations or standards involved in some of alleged violations. Formalities of court pleading are not applicable in administrative proceedings. Findings of fact need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A violation is willful if the person intentionally does an act which is prohibited or acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements.||Case|
|Re Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts|| 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.