Results

Displaying 6071 - 6080 of 6592
Titlesort ascending Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Commerical Purposes The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies. It has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering. Statute
Australia - Anti Cruelty - POCTAA General Regulations 1996 POCTAA Regs cl Agency Citation This Regulation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) 1979.  The regulations may prescribe guidelines relating to the welfare of species of farm or companion animals. Compliance or failure to comply with guidelines prescribed by regulation under this section is admissible as evidence in proceedings relating to compliance or failure to comply with POCTAA or the regulations. Administrative
Australia - Anti Cruelty - New South Wales Regulations

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 are authorative in the state of New South Wales.

Administrative
Australia - Animal Welfare - (Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed) Code of Welfare 2003 Code of Welfare No. 1 This code applies to all persons responsible for the welfare of broiler chickens in controlled environment broiler production systems. The pre-hatched chick that is in the last half of development is also covered by this code. In controlled environment broiler production systems, broiler chickens are kept in enclosed housing and are reliant on human management for all their daily requirements. The rearing of broiler chickens, if it is to be done well, requires both experience and the observance of high standards. Unless that work is done well, the welfare of the birds cannot be adequately protected. This code is intended to encourage all those responsible for its implementation to adopt the highest standard of husbandry, care and handling, to equal or exceed the minimum standards. Administrative
Australia - Animal Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Trades) Regulation 1996 Agency Citation

This Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Trades) Regulation 1996   identifies certain businesses as animal trades for the purposes of POCTAA, and prescribes Codes of Practice relevant to the conduct of those businesses. It also creates offences relating to the conduct of businesses classed as 'animal trades'.

Administrative
Australia

Australia Kangaroo Culling

Australia Live Export Laws

Policy
Austin v. Bundrick 935 So.2d 836 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) 41,064 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/30/06), 2006 WL 1791161 (La.App. 2 Cir.)

This Louisiana case involves a suit against the owner of a cow (Bundrick) that wandered into the road where it was struck by plaintiff Austin's vehicle.  Bundrick and his insurer, Colony Insurance Company, appealed the partial summary judgment finding Bundrick liable for the damages resulting from the accident. In reversing the lower court's order for partial summary judgment and remanding for a trial on the merits, the court noted that it is well settled that when an auto strikes a cow on one of the enumerated "stock law" highways, the burden of proof rests upon the owner of the animal to exculpate himself from even the slightest degree of negligence.

Case
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Unpublished) 2004 WL 423189 (Conn.Super.,2004) (only Westlaw citation available)

In this unpublished Connecticut opinion, the defendant-church owned property and leased a portion of the premises to one of its employees, Pedro Salinas.  The plaintiff was attacked by a dog, owned by Salinas, while lawfully on the defendant's premises.  The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant.  On appeal, the court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant-church was a "harborer" of the dog under Connecticut law.  Because Salinas and the church had no formal lease agreement, dispute existed as to the exact parameters of Salinas' exclusive control of the premises where his dog roamed.  There also existed a material fact regarding the church's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities because it had twice previously attacked a person. (Note the jury trial decision in favor of plaintiff was later overturned in Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church , --- A.2d ----, 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)).

Case
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church 894 A.2d 329 (Conn.App., 2006) 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)

The plaintiff, Virginia Auster, brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 22-357FN1 to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the dog of an employee of the defendant, Norwalk United Methodist Church.  Ms. Auster was a visitor who was on the premises to attend a meeting in the parish house when she was bitten by dog of church employee, who lived in an apartment in the parish house.  After a jury trial, the verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.  (See summary judgment appeal, 2004 WL 423189).  The Appellate Court held that church was not a “keeper” of the church employee's dog for purposes of statute which imposed strict liability on the keeper of any dog that did damage to the body or property of any person.  The court reversed the judgment and remanded the action for a new trial on the issue of common-law negligence

Case
Auster v. Norwalk 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008) 2008 WL 726289 (Conn. 2008) , 286 Conn. 152 (2008)

Plaintiff, while on church premises, was bitten by a church employee's dog.  Plaintiff seeks damages from church under the state dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability for damages on the dog's keeper.  The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, reasoning that a non-owner must be responsible for maintaining and controlling the dog at the time the damage is done in order to be held liable under the statute.

Case

Pages