United States
Displaying 1561 - 1570 of 4805
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Henry v. Zurich American Ins. Co. | This case concerns whether a veterinarian committed malpractice during the performance of a minor surgical procedure on a racing horse that led to the death of that horse. The owners of that racing horse filed suit against the veterinarian, veterinary clinic, and insurer of the clinic, seeking damages for the death of the racing horse. The trial court held in favor of the defendants, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the court found no error in the trial court's reasoning when issuing the judgment in favor of defendants, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. |
| Hernandez-Gotay v. United States | Plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin the enforcement and challenge the constitutionality of Section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“Section 12616”), which bans the “sponsor[ship]” and “exhibit[ion]” of cockfighting matches in Puerto Rico. The district court upheld Section 12616 as a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. On appeal here, the court first determined whether the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to challenge the law. It concluded that plaintiff Ángel Manuel Ortiz-Díaz, the owner of two cockfighting venues and a breeder and owner of more than 200 gamecocks, has standing to challenge Section 12616. Ortiz faces a credible threat of prosecution under Section 12616 because he regularly sponsors and exhibits cockfighting matches. Finding standing, the court considered plaintiffs' claim that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting Section 12616. The court found that cockfighting is an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce and Congress passing Section 12616 was a legitimate exercise of Commerce Clause power. Finally, plaintiffs contend that Section 12616 infringes on their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. In rejecting this argument, the court held that plaintiffs failed to identify the necessary "expressive element" in cockfighting activities that would render it subject to First Amendment protections and, even if they made such a showing, Section 12616 is a permissible restraint on such speech. Finally, nothing in Section 12616 infringes on the associational right to assemble since it does not prevent individuals from gathering to express their views on cockfighting. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. |
| Hetrick v. Ohio Dep't of Agric. | In this case, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision to grant appellee Hetrick's dangerous wild animal (DWA) permits. Hetrick was the owner of DWA's on his property, and according to an Ohio law he was required to register the DWA's and apply for permits before a certain statutory deadline. This court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) lacked a statutory basis to deny the application for a rescue facility permit on timeliness grounds but did not err in so finding on caging and care grounds. Further, the court reversed, in part, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas in the rescue facility permit case; reversed, in toto, the judgment of the lower court in the wildlife shelter permit case; and with this decision, reinstated the ODA's denial of both permits. Judgments reversed. |
| Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC | This is an action for negligence and premises-liability brought by a plaintiff, who was attacked by another patron's dog in the waiting room of defendant veterinary clinic. Plaintiff alleges defendant had a duty to provide a safe waiting area, which was breached by allowing the aggressive dog to attack her. Defendants allege that it had no knowledge of the dog's prior aggressive tendencies, and moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted defendants motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The court found that a lack of notice of the dog's vicious propensities does not alleviate defendant's liability to provide a safe waiting area, and modified the lower court's granting of summary judgment. |
| HI - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
| HI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 711) | Under this set of Hawaii laws, a person commits the misdemeanor offense of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, cruelly beats or starves any animal, deprives a pet animal of necessary sustenance, mutilates, poisons, or kills without need any animal other than insects, vermin, or other pests, or engages in animal fighting enterprises. Dog fighting constitutes a felony where the person owns or trains the dog to fight. The section has enhanced penalties for cruelty to guide or service animals or interference with their duties. |
| HI - Disaster; Accomodations for Pets - Chapter 128. Civil Defense and Emergency Act. | These sections replace former HRS § 128-1. In terms of animal-related provisions, the definition for "evacuation" includes mention of animals. In the section on sheltering, the law states that "[c]ounty emergency management agencies shall be responsible for identifying and operating locations and facilities suitable for sheltering" both the public and pet animals. "Pet animal” has the same meaning as defined in section 711-1100. |
| HI - Dog - General Dog Provisions | This Hawaii statute provides the pertinent regulations for dogs in the state. Included in its provisions are licensing, impoundment, seizure of loose or unlicensed dogs, and stray animals. Of particular note is a provision that makes it unlawful for any officer to knowingly sell or give any impounded dog to any person, firm, corporation, association, medical college, or university for the purpose of animal experimentation. |
| HI - Dog Bite - Chapter 142. Animals, Brands, and Fences. | This Hawaii statute provides that the owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent the recurrence of such incident. Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions (with no applicable exceptions), any person may bring an action against the owner of the dog. Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has bitten, injured, or maimed a person. No ordinance enacted under this subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil liability of a person owning the offending dog. |
| HI - Dog Bite - CHAPTER 663. TORT ACTIONS. | This statute represents Hawaii's relevant dog bite law. Under the statute, an owner or harborer of an animal is strictly liable for personal or property damage to any person, regardless of the animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal. |