Nevada

Displaying 41 - 43 of 43
Titlesort ascending Summary
Gilman v. Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners


The Slensky's took their ill beagle to Defendant's Animal Hospital for routine vaccinations and examinations due to the dog's loose stools for four days.  X-rays of the dog were taken, and when the dog was returned to the Slensky's, where it then collapsed.  Defendant instructed them to take the dog to the emergency clinic, where it later died.  The family filed a complaint with the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Defendant was later convicted of gross negligence and incompetence, an ethics violation, and for using an unlicensed veterinary technician.  His license was suspended and he was placed on probation.  The Court held that Defendant:  (1) could be assessed costs of the proceeding; (2) he could not be assessed attorney's fees; (3) the Board could award expert witness fees above the statutory cap; (4) the Board failed to justify the imposition of costs for an investigator; and (5) statutes did not permit the employment of an unlicensed veterinary technician.
Detailed Discussion of Nevada Great Ape Laws The following article discusses Great Ape law in Nevada. Nevada does not have any laws that directly address the protection of great apes. While the state of Nevada controls possession and importation of native endangered species by law, great apes are not specifically identified or addressed. Nevada’s administrative code also exempts “monkeys and other primates” from the permitting requirements required for possession, transport, and sale of other wild animals. In addition to the lack of prohibition on private ownership of great apes, there is a list of commercial uses that are allowed. Like other states, Nevada does not define great apes as “endangered,” either under its own endangered species law or any regulations.
Armstrong v. Riggi


Joe Riggi delivered his two unregistered Pomeranian dogs to the Armstrongs' Poodle Parlor to be bathed and groomed. The dogs died while in the care of the bailee. Riggi commenced this action to recover damages alleging that the dogs were worth more than $10,000. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state court rule regarding attorney fees. Since the appellate court did in fact determine error, the case was remanded.

Pages