Results
Displaying 5971 - 5980 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sharon Shumate v. Cecile Mouraux, an individual; Jean-Pierre Mouraux, an individual; both doing business as Happy Pets Inn, and | In this California case, the plaintiff sought damages after her companion, a nine-year-old purebred cocker spaniel, suffered terminal injuries after staying at a “dog spa.” The defendants marketed their pet boarding facility in the brochures given to plaintiff as one that would provide “personal care in a secure atmosphere.” After plaintiff’s dog spent a visit at defendants’ facility, she noticed that Daisy was behaving abnormally, crouching low to the ground and apparently cowering. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff then observed the dog whimpering in pain with bloody stools and a slow, lethargic demeanor. Upon bringing the dog in for a veterinary examination, the veterinarian determined that the dog had suffered multiple broken ribs. The dog later died and a necropsy revealed the dog had twelve broken ribs, a torn liver, and brain swelling caused by severe trauma. In a phone call to defendants, the defendants denied any wrongdoing saying that nothing could have happened to Daisy while at the Happy Pets Inn. Plaintiff’s causes of action focused on negligence claims, arguing that Daisy’s injuries could not have occurred without negligence by someone and that she was in the exclusive control of defendants when they occurred. (Plaintiff also raised a violation of business practices claim under California code.) What is significant about this complaint is that it raises a modified res ipsa loquitur argument in a bailment action. It also contends that an exculpatory waiver in such a business relationship was unlawful. | Pleading | |||
| Mexico - Cruelty - La Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente | General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection | This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife, the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that, to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles: (1) provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy and healthy; (2) provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species; (3) provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment; (4) allow animals to express their natural behavior; and (5) provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being. | Statute | ||
| TN - Breeders - Chapter 1200-33-01. Commercial Breeders | TN ADC 1200-33-01-.1 to .09 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-33-01-.01 to .09 | This chapter of Tennessee regulations implements the Commercial Breeder Act, T.C.A. § 44-17-701, et. seq. The section requires that a commercial breeder apply for license and comply with licensure requirements. Standards of care are governed by the federal regulations for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats under the Animal Welfare Act, found at 9 CFR §3.1 through 3.19. | Administrative | |
| AU - Animal Welfare Act 1993 (TAS) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 |
The AWA promotes the responsible care and use of animals through a strong focus on education, underpinned by legislation. It places a legal 'duty of care ' on those in charge of animals to provide for those animals' needs in an appropriate way. The RSPCA Tasmania administers this Act. |
Statute | ||
| GA - Banks County - Chapter 14 (Article 3: Domestic Animals) & Appendix A: Zoning | The Code of Banks County, Georgia §§ 14-33, 14-34, 301, 501-503, 601-603, 701(A)-703(A), 701(B)-703(B) |
In Banks County, Georgia, the number of dogs a person may own depends on the zone in which the person's property is located. The following ordinances indicate the zones and the numbers, as well as provide additional restrictions on dogs located within certain zones.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| Animal Wellness Action v. Soccer Wearhouse Inc | This complaint filed by plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy asks defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. to comply with existing California law. More specifically, it asks defendants to adhere to Penal Code section 653o (hereafter Section 653o), which prohibits the commercial importation, possession with intent to sell, and sale of products made with kangaroo parts. Through investigation and research, plaintiffs contend that defendants openly sell soccer cleats made of kangaroo leather, or “k-leather,” throughout California at defendants' various retail stores. According to plaintiffs, these stores make no attempt to hide the fact that these products contain kangaroo parts. Plaintiffs seek both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. and its representatives, co-conspirators, and all persons acting in concert with defendant or on its behalf, from selling or offering for sale kangaroo leather shoes. | Pleading | |||
| MI - Initiatives - Michigan Proposal 3 (mourning dove hunting) | 2006 Michigan Proposal 3 |
In 2006, Michigan voters were presented with Proposal 3 that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves by adding the species to the state game list. The measure was defeated by a 69 to 31 percent vote. |
Statute | ||
| WV - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. Va. Code, §§ 5A-4-4; § 7-7-6d; § 19-9-1 - 40; § 19-20-1 - 26; § 19-20A-1 - 8; § 19-20B-1 - 6; § 19-20C-1 - 3; § 19-20D-1 - 3; § 20-2-5; § 20-2-5f; § 20-2-5j; § 20-2-16; § 20-2-56a | WV ST §§ 5A-4-4; § 7-7-6d; § 19-9-1 - 40; § 19-20-1 - 26; § 19-20A-1 - 8; § 19-20B-1 - 6; § 19-20C-1 - 3; § 19-20D-1 - 3; § 20-2-5; § 20-2-5f; § 20-2-5j; § 20-2-16; § 20-2-56a | These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include registration requirements, rabies control, and hunting laws that impact dogs. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund, Wake County, A North Carolina Body Politic and Kelli Ferris, D.V.M., Plaintiffs v. Janie Conyers, Def | Plaintiffs in this case consist of the Wake County Animal Care, Control, and Adoption Center and the local chapter of the ALDF. They seek preliminary and permanent injunctions pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Secs. 19A-1 through 19A-4 against Defendant Janie Conyers, who was found to have 106 animals living in her house under deplorable conditions. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendant from acquiring any animals for 10 years after entry of judgment in this action. Plaintiffs also moved for an order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 19A-4 terminating all possessory interests in the animals seized and awarding custody and possessory rights to the ALDF. Most of the animals suffer from severe chronic oral and skin conditions due to neglect. Included in the documents are affidavits from veterinary professionals and the director of Wake County Animal, Care, Control, and Adoption Center concerning both the conditions of the animals seized and the estimated costs of care for those animals during the pendency of the litigation. | Pleading | |||
| Rowley v. Murphy | [1964] 2 QB 43 | [1963] 3 WLR 1061; [1964] 1 All ER 50; 128 JP 88; 107 SJ 982 |
A deer being hunted with a pack of hounds jumped onto a road and fell under a stationery vehicle. Members of the hunt dragged the deer from under the vehicle to a nearby enclosure, where the Master of the hunt slit the deer's throat and killed it. The Divisional Court held that the Master could not be convicted of an offence of cruelty under the 1911 Act because, for the purposes of that Act, which protects only captive and domestic animals, a mere temporary inability to escape did not amount to a state of captivity. |
Case |