Results
Displaying 5931 - 5940 of 6637
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borenstein v. Animal Foundation | Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 3472190 (D.Nev., 2021) | No. 219CV00985APGDJA, | Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against several defendants for adopting his service animal out to new owners while he was hospitalized. The court dismissed several claims, including those against the hospital defendants, and determined that the Clark County Animal Ordinance governed the hold of the dog. Plaintiff argues that the court misapplied the law, overlooked facts, and that there was new evidence. The court claimed that the animal ordinance applied because the dog was impounded under the vehicle confinement provision, as the dog was found while she was contained in plaintiff's car. Plaintiff argues that the dog was left in the car with the air conditioning on, that the dog had not been left in the car unattended for more than 15-17 minutes, and that hospital staff were supervising the car while the dog was in it. Therefore, the dog was not in danger enough to trigger the vehicle containment provision of the animal ordinance. However, the court found that there was no error in applying the animal ordinance, since plaintiff would be checking into the hospital for an unforeseen amount of time. | Case | |
| Booth v. State of Arizona | 83 P.3d 61 (Ariz. 2004) |
Motorist struck an elk lying on the side of the interstate highway and sued the state for negligence. The Court held that the state could be held liable for negligence and that the jury finding that the state breached its duty to keep the highway safe was supported by the evidence. |
Case | ||
| Boosman v. Moudy | 488 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App. 1972) |
In this Missouri case, an action was brought on behalf of a child who was bitten by a dog (a large dog of the malemute breed). After the lower court entered judgment against the dog owner, the owner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's evidence demonstrated that the dog had become ill-natured and had acquired the persistent menacing habit of growling, bristling and snapping at people. Such behavior was repeatedly brought to the attention of the owner's wife prior to time dog bit child. This evidence, together with owner's evidence that his daughter had encouraged the dog to play tug-of-war with her clothing, supported the verdict in favor of the plaintiff that the injury to child resulted from the propensity of the dog to do bodily harm, either in anger or from playfulness.
|
Case | ||
| Book Review: An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Cape Fear River | Henry Cohen | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
In this book review, Mr. Henry Cohen reviews "An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Cape Fear River" by Steven M. Wise. |
Article | |
| Bonner v. Martino | 927 So.2d 564 (La.App. 5 Cir., 2006) | 2006 WL 782710 (La.App. 5 Cir.) |
Plaintiff-housekeeper brought an action against her employers and their liability insurance providers after the employers' dog jumped up on a door that subsequently injured the plaintiff. In affirming the trial court's granting of defendants' motion for summary judgment, the appellate court held that housekeeper did not demonstrate that dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm. |
Case | |
| Bone v. Vill. Club, Inc. | 223 F.Supp. 3d 1203 (M.D. Fla. 2016) | This case dealt with a woman's request to have her emotional-support dog live with her before purchasing land in a mobile home community, known as Brookhaven. Prior to purchasing her lot, the plaintiff allegedly received permission from the president of Brookhaven's board of directors to keep her dog, even though the plaintiff was purchasing a lot in the "no pet" section of Brookhaven. The plaintiff provided the president of the board with the documentation requested, and the president told plaintiff she had been approved by the board to have her dog. Approximately one year after plaintiff purchased her lot, Brookhaven's attorney sent a letter requesting that plaintiff remove her dog, citing Brookhaven's policies disallowing her dog. After several letters sent back and forth between plaintiff's attorney and Brookhaven's attorney concerning requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the party's respective actions, both parties cross-moved for summary judgement. The court held that 1) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether tenant had an actual disability; 2) landlord was not prejudiced by tenant's untimely disclosure of expert report; 3) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord constructively denied tenant an accommodation; and 4) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord retaliated against tenant for requesting a disability accommodation. As a result, all motions for summary judgement were denied. | Case | ||
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley No. 1333 | Ley No. 1333 | This is the most important law regarding the protection of the environment and natural resources in Bolivia. It regulates human interaction with nature and promotes sustainable development to improve the quality of life of the population. Under this law, wildlife trafficking is punished with up to 6 years of imprisonment. | Statute | ||
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley 2352, 2002 | Ley 2352, 2002 | Approved and adopted the "CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS" signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, into the Bolivian legal system. | Statute | ||
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY Nº 300, 2012 | LEY Nº 300, 2012 | Ley 300 establishes the legal framework for the conservation of the environment, or "mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of mother earth and the legal status that are subjects of rights. | Statute | ||
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY 71, 2010 | Ley 71 is “the law for the rights of mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of Mother Earth, as well as the obligations and duties of the government and society to guarantee respect for these rights. This law gives the environment, or "mother earth," and all its components, the status of collective subject of public interest for the purpose of guaranteeing the protection of its rights. | Statute |