Results
Displaying 6631 - 6640 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steagald v. Eason | 797 S.E.2d 838 (2017) | 300 Ga. 717, 2017 WL 875038 (Ga., 2017) |
In this case, Gary and Lori Steagald sued the Eason family, alleging that the Easons failed to keep their dog properly restrained and were therefore liable under OCGA § 51-2-7. Lori Steagald suffered injuries after the Easons dog attacked her while she was visiting the Easons home. The Easons filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that they had no reason to know that the dog was vicious or dangerous and therefore were not liable under the statute. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed the motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the lower court’s decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the Eason family was liable under the statute because they did have reason to believe that the dog could potentially be vicious or dangerous. The Court focused on the fact that the dog had previously “growled and snapped” at the Easons while being fed. The Court held that although the dog had never bit anyone prior to Lori Steagald, it was reasonable to assume that the dog could potentially bite and injure someone given the fact that it had a history of snapping and growling. As a result, the Court reversed the Easons motion for summary judgment and determined that the question of whether or not the Easons are liable under the statute is a question for the jury. |
Case |
| KS - Wildlife Possession - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation. | K. S. A. 32-1005 | KS ST § 32-1005 | Knowingly capturing, killing, or possessing for profit, or selling, bartering, purchasing or offering to do so as well as the shipping or transportation of wildlife constitutes the commercialization of wildlife. The possession of listed wildlife for commercial purposes is considered a "nonperson" misdemeanor or felony depending on whether the aggregate value is greater than $1000. Commerce in protected wildlife (including eagles) incurs at least the minimum fine and may also result in the confiscation of equipment, license sanctions, and restitution. | Statute |
| WV - Hunting, Internet - § 20-2-5. Unlawful methods of hunting and fishing and other unlawful acts. | W. Va. Code Ann. § 20-2-5 | W. Va. Code Ann. § 20-2-5 (West) | This statute prohibits unlawful hunting in the state of West Virginia. Subsection (a)(27) effectively serves as the remote hunting ban. It is unlawful for any person to "[h]unt or conduct hunts for a fee when the person is not physically present in the same location as the wildlife being hunted within West Virginia." The statute (subsection (5)) also prohibits hunting by airplane or other airborne conveyance or by "a drone or other unmanned aircraft." Subsection (12) prohibits hunting by use of a ferret. | Statute |
| CO - Wildlife - Article 6. Law Enforcement and Penalties--Wildlife. | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-101 to 142 | CO ST § 33-6-101 to 142 | These Colorado statutes represent Part 1 of the state's wildlife code. Among the provisions include violations for improperly taking wildlife, hunting provisions, and a law prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting. | Statute |
| Schriver v. Raptosh | 557 P.3d 398 (Idaho 2024) | No. 49818, 2024 WL 4395178 | This Idaho case addresses the recoverable damages for a pet owner following the death of a pet due to alleged veterinary malpractice and an unauthorized necropsy. The Schrivers sought non-economic damages, including emotional distress and loss of companionship, after their cat, Gypsy, died during a veterinary procedure and was subjected to a necropsy without their consent. The district court denied emotional distress damages under their trespass to chattels/conversion claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the veterinarian on claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lack of informed consent. The court, however, applied the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, which the veterinarian cross-appealed. The court affirmed that pets are considered personal property under Idaho law, and damages for their loss are limited to economic value, excluding sentimental value or loss of companionship. Emotional distress damages are not recoverable under trespass to chattels or conversion claims but may be pursued under independent torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court upheld the denial of negligent infliction of emotional distress, finding no duty of care owed by veterinarians to prevent emotional harm to pet owners. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim regarding the unauthorized necropsy, remanding it for jury determination as to whether the conduct was “extreme and outrageous.” The court also affirmed that lack of informed consent is not a standalone cause of action in veterinary malpractice cases, though it may inform claims of professional negligence. Finally, the court upheld the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, clarifying that it includes the pet’s unique characteristics but excludes sentimental value. The court denied the veterinarian’s request for attorney fees, as the primary issues of the litigation remain unresolved. | Case |
| Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico | Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico, OFICIO No.: D.G.P.L. 64-Il-6-2694. EXPEDIENTE No. 6197. | It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. The objectives of this law extend beyond the aforementioned points: 1) Recognizing Bees as Priority Species: The law aims to acknowledge bees as a species of paramount importance in biodiversity preservation, highlighting the need for their protection; 2) Promoting Education and Awareness: An essential aspect of this legislation is promoting education and awareness regarding the importance of respecting, caring for, protecting, conserving, and fostering a deep appreciation for bees; 3) Equal Status with Livestock: The law seeks to elevate their status to the same level as cattle. Consequently, stealing bees would be considered a rustling crime under the Federal Penal Code; and 4) Recognizing Honey's Nutritional Value: The law also aims to establish honey as a perfect food, recognizing its exceptional nutritional properties. It advocates for honey to be considered an essential component of a balanced diet to safeguard the health of society. Furthermore, this law contains provisions to enhance the regulation and support of apiculture, including the rights and obligations of beekeepers; it creates the National Council of the Beekeeping Product System, outlines the responsibilities and attributions of relevant authorities, and sets forth specific standards, reporting procedures, and licensing requirements for various aspects of beekeeping, including the establishment of apiaries, the movement of hives or their products, and other relevant activities. | Statute | |
| GA - Fur - Article 2. Trapping, Trappers, and Fur Dealers | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-60 to 73 | GA ST § 27-3-60 to 73 | Under these GA statutes, trappers and fur-dealers must be licensed. Trapping of fur-bearing animals is allowed during open trapping season. Traps must be inspected at least once every 24 hours. Trappers must dispatch fur-bearing animals caught in a trap and release domestic animals. It is legal to set traps to protect livestock and domestic animals from predators, but unlawful to trap upon the right of way of any public road or upon another's land. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| CA - Birds - Part 2. Birds. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3500 - 3864 | CA FISH & G § 3500 - 3864 | These various sections are all related to the protection of birds in California. Within these sections, the Legislature has enumerated fully protected birds in the state, prohibited activities such as destroying bird nests and eggs, required licenses for duck hunting, and outlined several provisions to guide state efforts in preserving and rehabilitating the California Condor. | Statute |
| Decision EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru | Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC | In this case, the appellant filed a habeas corpus action against a magistrate for threatening to arrest him for displaying political disfavor using a pet rat in a cage. The magistrate ordered the police to seize the rat, implying a threat to the animal. The first court ruled against the appellant, stating his actions offended the magistrate's dignity and that the magistrate was protecting his reputation. The appellate court agreed, noting the difference between free expression and offending honor, and also declared the complaint unfounded. | Case | |
| Ecuador - Stray animals - Ley 67, 2006 | Ley 67, 2006, Ecuador | The excerpt from the organic law for health corresponds to the treatment of companion and stray animals. Article 123 establishes that domestic animal owners must vaccinate their animals against rabies and other diseases the health authority considers a risk to human health. Owners are also responsible for keeping their animals in conditions that do not risk human health and environmental hygiene. Under the same article, municipalities, in coordination with the health authority, control and handle stray animals. | Statute |