Results

Displaying 11 - 20 of 6636
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 13

SUMÁRIO

EDITORIAL

Heron José de Santana Gordilho

DOUTRINA INTERNACIONAL/INTERNATIONAL ARTICLES

1. PORQUE É CRIME ESMAGAR UM PEIXINHO DOURADO?: DANO, VÍTIMA E A ESTRUTURA DOS CRIMES ANTI-CRUELDADE

Policy
City of Water Valley v. Trusty 343 So.2d 471 (Miss. 1977) Appellants filed b ill of complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of city's dog leash ordinance.  The court summarily held that Mississippi Code Annotated s 21-19-9 (1972) authorizes municipalities to regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds. The ordinance here was enacted pursuant to that authority, it meets the constitutional requirements, and the demurrer should have been sustained on that question. Case
Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of Glastonbury 2002 WL 31761999 (Conn.Super.)

The plaintiff, Animal Rights Front, Inc., an environmental intervenor, appeals from a final decision of the defendant that gave subdivision and special permit approval to an application by defendant Rejean Jacques d/b/a Rejean Realty, Inc.  The basic issue of the plaintiff's appeal relates to preservation of the Eastern Timber Rattlesnake, an endangered species common to the Diamond Lake section of Glastonbury, and its migration across the development project, which would inherently lead to mortality.  On appeal, defendants questioned plaintiff's standing because they contended that rattlesnakes do not fall under the category of "natural resources."  Relying on a companion case, the court noted that endangered species are inherently deemed natural resources.  However in dismissing plaintiff's appeal, the court found that the defendant made changes that provided for the protection of the rattlesnake and the commission reasonably relied upon these assertions by the defendant to support its conclusions so it was not required to consider alternatives to the proposed development.

Case
NV - Rabies - 441A.435. Owner required to maintain dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated NV ADC 441A.435 Nev. Admin. Code 441A.435 This Nevada regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat or ferret shall maintain the dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated against rabies in accordance with the provisions of this section and the recommendations set forth in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2008 edition, published by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. A licensed veterinarian may exempt a dog, cat or ferret from vaccination for health reasons. Administrative
VA - Restaurant - § 3.2-5115. Animals VA Code Ann. § 3.2-5115 VA ST § 3.2-5115 This Virginia law states that no animal shall be permitted in any area used for the manufacture or storage of food products. However, a dog may be allowed in designated areas of a distillery, winery, or brewery as defined in the law. Statute
GA - Breeding - Chapter 40-13-13. Animal Protection GA ADC 40-13-13-.01 to .09 Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 40-13-13-.01 to .09 There regulations set out the requirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state. Administrative
WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.040. Dog bites. Liability and Dangerous dogs and related provisions. West's RCWA 16.08.010 - 110 WA ST 16.08.010 - 110 This Washington statute outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. Under the law, the owner or keeper of any dog shall be liable to the owner of any animal killed or injured by such dog for the amount of damages sustained in a civil action. Further, there is strict liability for the owner of any dog that bites any person while in a public place or lawfully on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages. Statute
WA - Buckely - Breed - Chapter 9.10 (Pit Bull Ordinance) BUCKELY, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 9.10.020, 9.10.260 - 9.10.300 (2008)

In Buckely, Washington, pit bulls are defined to be “dangerous dogs." Such dogs are considered to be a public nuisance and shall be humanely destroyed or removed from the city.

Local Ordinance
Perpetual Trustees Tasmania Ltd v State of Tasmania [2000] TASSC 68

A testatrix bequeathed a part of her estate to be used in support of 'animal welfare'. It was held that this constituted a charitable trust as the purpose was so predominantly charitable that the intention was to be assumed and that even if that portion of the estate could be used for non-charitable purposes, this was in a manner allowed under the Wills Act 1992 (Tas).

Case
Ladnier v. Norwood 781 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which found in favor of defendants, veterinarian and insurer, in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's horse. The court affirmed the judgment that found defendants, veterinarian and insurer, not negligent in the death of a horse belonging to plaintiff horse owner because they met the statutorily required standard of care. Defendants did not breach a duty to warn because the risk of a fatal reaction to the drug they gave to the horse was common and was considered by equine specialists to be insubstantial.

Case

Pages