text:
Q-Is it true that Ayurveda does have no side effect?
Ans- Every effect does have its side effect and so as ayurveda. But it is not as dangerous as that of modern medicine.
Q-Does ayurvedic medicine give a delayed effect?
Ans-No, people approach ayurveda in a delayed manner. A chronic disease, old patient, detoriated health will take time to get managed .
Q-What about the expiry date of ayurvedic medicine?
Ans- Because ayurvedic medicine are made of herbs, they are highy perishable so have expiry date. Only some forms of ayurvedic medicines like Asava, Aristha & Rasa ousadhi work better as they grow old.
Q-Can the acute diseases be managed by ayurvedic treatment?
Ans- Yes, almost all diseases can be managed by ayurveda. Previously when there was no modern medicine people managed all of their health problems with ayurveda.
Q-Do ayurvedic doctors of astanga ayurveda know modern anatomy & physiology?
Ans- The doctors have gone through the modern anatomy & physiology during their under graduation as these subjects come within the syllabus.
Q-Do astanga ayurveda doctors refer modern investigation reports like X-ray, MRI, USG etc.
Ans- Yes, investigation reports and clinical methods are same for all doctors and we justify our treatment with modern technology.
Q-Is there any price list for the treatment of any disease?
Ans- There is a price list for different types of treatment performed in the hospital but there is no price list for any disease because the treatment vary from person to person.
Q-Is the price list same for two persons having the same disease?
Ans- No, because the treatment depends upon disease, person, grade, climate, appetite, stamina, stomach condition, age, etc.
Q-What is the way of payment?
Ans- We take full payment in advance by cash or bank draft.
Q-Can ayurvedic medicine be taken with allopathic medicine & vice versa?
Ans- Yes, because ayurvedic medicine are as safe as food which are also taken during the intake of allopathy medicine.
Q-Can all diseases be cured by ayurveda?
Ans- Yes, almost all diseases can be cured by ayurveda.
Q-Which ayurveda is better, Kerla or Orissa?
Ans- There is nothing called Kerla ayurveda and Orissa ayurveda. Science does have no barrier. It is the same all over the world.
Q-Is there indoor facility in Astanga Ayurveda?
Ans- We do have indoor facilities with single room attached bath-room.
Q-Is chywanprash a common cold medicine?
Ans- No, chywanprash is a rasayan i.e natural anti-oxidant. It prevents aging and brings youthfulness. Because it contains sufficient amla which is rich in vitamin-C, it has excellent effect over cold allergy. It is a tonic round the life.
Q-Can we get a remote consultation and medicine supply?
Ans-Yes, the phone number 9437055021 remains open 24×365 hours to provide immediate service. Also somebody can contact us through email id and get medicine by postal or courier service.
Q- Should I stop all the previous medicine during the Ayurvedic treatment?
Ans: No, you need not stop the previous medicines during the Ayurvedic treatment. Ayuvedic medicines are as good as the food we take everyday.
Q: Can I take allopathic and Ayurvedic medicine together?
Ans: Yes, there is no problem in taking both the medicines together


text:
Is my website elegible for Free Migration?
Probably it is. Most websites are elegible for our free migrations.
In this page you will find a small test so you can check if your website is elegible or not.
If you do not know the answer to any question, do not worry, choose a plan and start the process and we will check all this for you for free.
Compatibility Test
Is your website Updated?
Make sure that you have all the plugins from your WordPress install updated, included the premium ones.
The theme needs to be updated too. If it is a Premium Theme, make sure you check the creator website to see if there is any new version.
Updating the core of WordPress is really easy. You need to make sure you are using the latest version available.
Are you using custom code?
If you have any plugins that are custom made for your website, we will need to review them to make sure everything is ok. Contact the developer if you can to confirm that they do not need to be updated.
If your theme is custom coded, you will need to contact the developer that made it and make sure that you do not need to update it.
If you have any other custom code on the website, please let us know. We will need to make sure it is compatible.
Other Questions
If your site was hacked, we will need to make sure that it has been properly cleaned.
Sometimes the hosting companies offer the domains when you create your website. It is a good idea to have the domain and the hosting on separate companies. If your domain is part of your hosting package, you will need to move it before we can migrate your site. We will help you on the process.
Emails should be separated from hostings, but some cheap hosting still offer email services. We do not offer email services, so to move your website to our servers, you will need to make sure your emails are independent from your website hosting. We will help you to do this too.
If your website is not a WordPress.org installation but a wordpress.com account, a free migration is not possible. We have done this before several times, so it is something really common. Contact us and we will let you know how much it will cost to transfer your site to a WordPress.org install.
Technical Questions
We only host SSL sites on our servers. If your site is not using SSL (https://), we need to transform it before we move it into our system.
The transfer of your website to SSL is now free for Business and Ecommerce Plans.
We can handle databases of any size, but if your database is bigger than 1GB, it could means that there is something wrong with your install and we will need to review it.
Our hosting can handle any size of websites, but if you are using more than 5GB of space, it is probably that something is not right with your setup. We will check it and let you know.
We will check this as part of our process, so if you do not know the answer, just ignore the question.
It is recommended to use PHP 7.1 on the WordPress server.
You do not need to do this now, this page is to help you understand the process of migration. If you want to join us, just choose a plan and we will take care of everything.
What happens if my site is not elegible for the free migration?
We will check your site and provide you with a quotation on how much will cost to make your site compatible. You can accept the quote and we will start working on your site.
If you decided to reject the quotation, and you do not make the changes needed on your site to make it compatible with WPHercules, we will refund all the money you have paid as we cannot accept your website into our systems.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Beginner s Guide to Marshall Law! i , damage ,,b,f DSS is i , damage KND KND it has .BOOOOOOOM **General Playstyle** * Marshall Law is an offensive character with good poking and pressure as well as good mixups and .A comprehensive character guide tutorial for Marshall Law in Tekken . INTENDED FOR .Tactics and suggestions when using the character..Basic guide for MARSHALL LAW in TEKKEN PS XB PC . If you need any help, leave a .Here is small piece of work showing how easily you can do Laws combo Its for beginners only . Tekken Law Tips to help you learn everything you need to know about In our Tekken Law Tips Guide, we have detailed everything you . YouTuber PepperBeefSpicy who you may remember as the creator of Tekken s ultimate prep guide has made a great video series for .
Related posts to Law Guide Tekken 7
Law Combo Guide Tekken Youtube
Aris Plays Tekken How Hard Is This Jin Combo? About Dollars Duration . Avoiding The Puddle , views.
Tekken Law Tips Frame Data Custom Combos And
Tekken Law Tips to help you learn everything you need to know about playing as Law, strategies, frame data, and custom combos. Marshall Law in Tekken .
Tekken Guide Marshall Law Tips Thetech
Tekken Guide Marshall Law Tips Sid Shrivastava A graduand from VIT University, Vellore in Mechanical Engineering, currently working in Elecon Engineering Company. Gaming and writing have been his passion since childhood and hence, he believes TheTech is a great platform to showcase his passion and ability..
Weekly Tekken Discussion Marshall Law Tekken
Law with that black striped yellow jump suit costume makes me so hard. Can't wait to learn how to play him for real this time since the last time I played Tekken was the OG TTT and the last time I played Law .


text:
Mobile Version
Town Home Homes For Sale On MLS in Ohio - Unspecified community
Browse for Town Home Listings For Sale On MLS within the Unspecified community in Ohio, United States. Find the Home of your dreams on Savannah Homes for Sale today!
Reset You Have Selected
For technical support issues contact SavannahNowHiring
Featured Agent[ View All ]


text:
Frank Rennemann
Linus has written a book, just for fun.
Some people may think: "Oh, the guru has finally written a
bible-like work for his followers, to show us the way". Be
warned, folks, you couldn't be more wrong!
Some others might think: "Oh, I see, Linus, that's the one who has
declared war to Bill Gates". Sorry, but you are mistaken too.
If you want to know why you are wrong, read it - just for fun (I
love the title's ambiguity).
What Linus presents in his book is precisely why he is not and
doesn't want to be the guru of a movement, and why it is not about
Linux competing against other operating systems. For him it is simply
a matter of doing it ...just for fun.
For all those who just want to read an impartial version of how
Linux came to be, and of course for all those who have recognized
themselves in the above train of thoughts, "Just For Fun",
Linus Torvalds's book, will be a funny and at the same time
interesting reading. Particularly you, nerds and geeks, will love
it. It shows that you can also become someone, even with your style
that "in the best cases can be described as interesting" and your
shabby promotional t-shirts in which you spend most of the day.
The anecdotes and scenery portrayed by Linus and his co-writer
David Diamond provide a very entertaining, thrilling and, what's more,
interesting insight into the current, almost revolutionary development
of the IT industry.
Furthermore, the Linux inventor gives his particular answer to the
meaning of life. There are three really important things in life and
they follow a natural sequence. The first motif is survival, the
second one, social system, and the third stage is pleasure and
entertainment. What is more, Linus can even explain why this basic
principle applies to everything, from a water hole to aerospace, from
the amoeba to the homo sapiens.
Ony the penguin affair remains somehow lost in the fog of
history. The book offers two credible versions of it: one by Linus'
wife, Tove, and one by Linus himself. At least both involve a biting
penguin in an Australian zoo. Has anybody noticed that Tux's yellow
beak and feet are entirely unusual for a penguin? "As if Daffy Duck
got a little kwazy on a cruise to Antarctica and had a wild
one-night-stand with some native fowl" (quotation from book).
Conclusion: absolutely worth reading. Alleged followers and
separatists will be set right, as well as dogmatic operating system
warriors. And all of them will be guaranteed tons of fun at reading
\n"; ?>


text:
"So what do you…like..do?"
Family members, friends, my boyfriend's parents, my doorman. For most people, wrapping their minds around what a blogger does all day is far from clear. For a career that's built around making life look effortless, the reality is far far from it. So here's a typical work day:
I'm lucky enough to not have to be at an office at a certain time, but that doesn't mean I roll out of bed at 10am every day. I'm naturally an early riser (I wake with the sun no matter where I am) and get straight to work.
7am. Emails
I like to hash out my emails in one sitting, once a day. Responding to emails is probably the most important part of my job. Brands reaching out for inquiries on collaborations, invites to events, reviewing contracts, etc.
9am. Gym
Look good, feel good duh.
11am. Shoot
I either hire a photographer or grab coffee with a fellow blogger and shoot. This typically involves four bags stuffed with with multiple looks that I get the pleasure of lugging around for the rest of the day.
3pm. Meetings & Press Previews
What's a press preview? It's when the brand invites you to come into the showroom (or sometimes it's an event, a pop up, an appointment, a lunch, whatever) to check out the new collection. It's an opportunity for the influencer to get to know the brand and to make a connection with the PR rep for a potential opportunity. And it's a press opportunity for the brand if we post some stories of the event.
6pm. Administrative To-Do's
All the little things. Responding to peoples blog comments. Engaging on social. Sorting through the 1,000 photos I took this morning. Editing them. Planning out my feed. Making sure my invoices are paid on time (which they never are). The list goes on and on.
8pm. Dinner Event
Brand dinners are essentially a more intimate version of a press preview. Where they invite a select group of influencers to a seated dinner. It's always a fun way to meet new people and get to know the brand. And there's usually champagne.
11pm. Write A Blog Post
Okay, so this always falls back as the last thing on my to-do on my list. So naturally it gets neglected (hence why I'm writing this at 11:31pm and why you haven't been seeing that many blog posts from me lately.) They take time. And I don't have much of that. So yeah, sorry about that.
And there's always the miscellaneous "general to do" list that lingers on a sticky note that daunts my desktop. Here's what on it now: Make a photography deck. Create a visual moodboard. Sell all my shit on Ebay. Figure out how to use my canon. And write this blog post. :)
Of course when you're your own boss you can do as much or as little as you want. It's up to you. You get out what you put in.
photos by Andrew Morales
click to shop the look:
All Saints jacket | IRO shorts | Balenciaga hat | Aldo shoes | Givenchy bag


text:
Oriental rugs and art? Is it even possible to compare the two?
A behind-the-scenes look at how rugs are manufactured reveals some very interesting and surprising connections between these two art forms.
Oriental rugs are beautiful creations made by only very few, very talented tribal nomads. Each rug is painstakingly hand-woven. There is absolutely no machine-made element in these pieces. Anyone who has tried their hand at hand-knotting an Oriental rug will realize that it is not as simple as it sounds. Every facet of the rug is made by hand, from the individual knots to the finishing touches. Some rugs that have elaborate designs can take a weaver several months to complete and the completed piece is so stunningly beautiful, they can even be used to decorate the walls instead of as a floor covering.
Take a closer look at any Oriental rug and you will notice that the designs are not just haphazardly executed. The motifs, the borders, the field of the rug and all other elements are thought about and placed with a great eye for detail. The colors too are beautifully paired together to make the designs stand out.
What's more, because these rugs are woven by hand by different individuals, every single piece is unique – a reflection of the tribal's creativity and skill.
Watching a weaver working on a rug is like watching an artist bring a painting to life. Every element of the artwork is carefully paired with colors, shapes and other elements to create a final piece that is cherished and admired.
There's no doubt that every Oriental rug that is manufactured is a unique piece of art and just like a rare works of art, they need to be looked after so they can be handed down from one generation to the next.
Caring For Your Unique Piece of Art
Here are a few things you can do to extend the life of your Oriental rug:
- Keep the rug protected from direct sunlight. Extended exposure to direct sunlight will fade the colors unevenly, resulting in the piece looking worn out and old prematurely
- Rotate the rug frequently so that no one area suffers extensive damage from overexposure to the elements.
- Regular rotation is also important to make sure that all corners of the rug are exposed to air and light frequently to prevent damage by moths. Corners of rugs and those areas that stay undisturbed under furniture provide moths with an ideal place to lay their eggs. Exposing these areas to air and sunlight regularly will deter moths from laying their eggs and keep your rug protected.
- Use good quality padding under the rug. Padding holds the rug fast to the floor, preventing it from wrinkling and shifting around so that it looks good longer.
- Abrasive dirt and debris that gets into the pile of the rug can damage the wool and silk fibers of the rug. To prevent this from happening, clean your rug at least once a week with a soft bristled room. If excessive dirt has collected into the pile, take the rug out in the backyard and beat it. Learn how to do this correctly before you try it.
- Check the rug regularly for signs of tears or worn out areas. Get all tears repaired immediately before it becomes unsalvageable. Keep in mind also that large tears can be hugely expensive to repair as it is time-consuming work that can only be done by very few skilled rug-repair professionals.
Last but certainly not least, if you are planning on storing your Oriental rug it is most important to take all proper precautions so it does not get damaged by moisture or moths.


text:
Abstract des Vortrages von Neron Budur
Cohomology jump loci
In practice, any deformation problem over fields of characteristic zero is governed by a differential graded Lie algebra (DGLA). Following Deligne, Goldman-Millson and Simpson described the local structure of deformation spaces for various geometric situations. Given an object with a notion of cohomology theory, how can one describe all its deformations subject to cohomology constraints? We will present an approach via DGLA pairs. As applications we discuss the structure of cohomology jump loci of vector bundles and of local systems. This is joint work with Botong Wang.


text:
The fashion world continues to make strides toward banning dangerously thin models from runways and ad campaigns to make the modelling world safer and more health-focused for those working in it and those who are affected by the images. Unfortunately, it seems that one of the most famous faces and names in fashion is not following the new trend of promoting healthy body types.
Victoria Beckham has recently begun receiving criticism for her use of a dangerously thin-looking model in her latest eyewear campaign. Posting pictures of her new eyewear line this week on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, Beckham uploaded two photos of the same model wearing glasses, writing "Back to work! Start the year with new frames from the Spring Summer 2018 #VBEyewear collection inspired by 1970s retro classics and updated for a feathery-light, fresh and modern look."
The model, 29-year-old Giedre Dukauskaite, has previously worked with Marc Jacobs, Celine, Miu Miu, and Diane von Furstenberg, but it appears that her new campaign with Beckham is giving her the most press, though not for a good reason.
It seems that many people are less focused on the 1970s-inspired glasses and more fixated on the model wearing them. Many fans quickly began commenting on Beckham's Instagram post, with one writing "You should be ashamed of yourself VB. You have power and influence in an industry that destroys girls image of themselves. And you choose to ignore what is going on in the world."
Other fans took to social media to voice their concerns over what they believe is an unhealthy and unrealistic body type being portrayed by Dukauskaite in the new ad.
Whether this model is naturally thin or not, you have chosen her. That is irresponsible and unworthy of so prominent a designer. Public feeling is not with you on this.
— Tony Balmforth (@tonybalmforth) January 14, 2018
Good god Victoria, this is NOT what I want as a Role Model to my 5 year old niece!! Shameful
— anna jones #FBPE (@AnnaJ1979) January 14, 2018
A model who looks like a teenager with severe anorexia is the face for the #VBEyeware 2018 summer collection. This is the reason why every study done on social media and advertising calls the threat to young girls' mental health "dire". @victoriabeckham pic.twitter.com/xS6hC2SwlW
— Amanda Foreman (@DrAmandaForeman) January 14, 2018
Not everyone is against Beckham's latest ad. One follower on Instagram wrote that "It's ridiculous that people who claim #BodyPositivity are actually #BodyShaming this lady… I wish they would realize that they're PART of the problem."
So… Fat shaming is never acceptable, we all agree on that. So why is skinny shaming ok? Victoria Beckham used a model who is being called ill looking, sickly skinny, vile & disgusting. How is this acceptable? Maybe she is happy and healthy and this is her natural body shape
— Lyndsey Carlin (@lyndseystweets) January 15, 2018
As for Beckham, the fashion designer has yet to respond.


text:
Show All Answers
Read the Overview of Municipal Aggregation
Yes. A permit must be purchased at the Fire Department Administration Office at 1125 S. Illinois St. The cost is $10. Applicant will be required to adhere to the Belleville Fire Department guidelines regarding Open Burning and Recreational Fires. Note: Special event permits cost $300 and have guidelines that must be adhered to also.
Copies of police reports can be requested by fax, mail or in person. The Records Department has 5 days to complete your request.
If you are requesting a copy by mail please mail your request to: Records Department, Belleville Police Department, 720 W. Main St., Belleville, IL 62220
If you are requesting a copy by fax, please fax to 618-234-7133
Incident and Offense Reports are generally provided at no cost. Accident reports cost $5 per report. We accept cash, checks or money orders. Checks should be made payable to the Belleville Police Department. Accident reports can also be obtained on line at LexisNexis.
View the Sanitation Department's Yard Waste Collection Schedule.
The city offers a large item pick up on a daily basis, by reservation, for a minimum fee of $65 for one load, $90 for two loads, and $120 for 3 loads. To arrange for a pick up, call the Sanitation Administration office at 618-233-6816 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. All building materials must be cut and bundled in 4 foot lengths or less with twine, string, or rope.
The following items will not be picked up for a large item pick up: Concrete, bricks, shingles, tires, appliances, electronics, paint or other hazardous wastes, batteries, yard waste, or Waste Management bags filled with items.
Fees are billed along with the sewer bill on a monthly basis.
An explanation of your sewer bill can be found at http://www.belleville.net/585/Explanation-of-Sewer-Bill.


text:
Minced Pork with Bean Paste Sauce (For noodles)
230g Minced pork
50g cooking oil
4 tbsp Spice Vinegar
2 tbsp Pat Chun Kecap Manis Sauce
3 tbsp Pat Chun Plum Sauce
2 tbsp Pat Chun Sweet Noodle Sauce
2 tbsp Pat Chun Chili Bean Sauces
2 tbsp Pat Chun Sesame Sauce
1tbsp ginger, chopped
2 tbsp water
1. Stir-fry minced pork until cook through, then add ginger.
2. Add sauce and bring to boil. Serve. Sauce can keep in refrigerators for 6 days.
Contact us
Our support hotline is available from 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday, except on public holidays.
Phone:+852-2392-6862Contact our expert support team!


text:
LCHIV posted about a show from September 10, 2001
Rained out!!! Yeah- thats a bummer. Better to have the band safe. Did they reschedule or refund? And I'm sure you've seen them since.... :)))
All tickets were refunded. But I have never seen Radiohead (before or since)!
@LCHIV You GOTTA get on that!! I saw them a couple times but once time specifically, at an outdoor fest in NYC, the crowd was memorized. I didn't really know their stuff then so I kinda felt a little like an outsider. Was awesome to see how intense the fans were. Like they were hypnotized. And the stage lighting/video/camera angles were killer. GO!!!!
LCHIV posted about a show from September 10, 2001


text:
Barrack interior, 10-7-42 8:20 PM
Hoshida, George
[ bio ]
Lordsburg, N.M.,
Gift of June Hoshida Honma, Sandra Hoshida and Carole Hoshida Kanada
7 drawings on paper (1 sheet) : ink ; bottom image 3.875 x 6 in., on sheet 9.5 x 6 in.
Ink sketches of seven men in various activities at 8 PM and a barracks interior at 8:20 PM on October 7, 1942.
Top left sketch of two men, Kawasaki and Mizutani, playing Japanese chess game called Go. Visible from the waist up, one man wears glasses faces viewer while looking down at board, while other man has back to viewer.
Top center sketch of a man, T. Shindo, in profile looking down as he watches a Go game.
Top right sketch of a man standing with back to viewer with proper right arm partially drawn extended.
Middle left sketch of a mustached man with eyeglasses, Mizutani, looking down at something in his hand ; visible from chest up.
Middle center sketch of a man sitting in profile left playing cards.
Middle right sketch of a man, H. Kimura, sitting with back to viewer.
Bottom sketch depicting barracks interior. Metal framed bed in foreground ; two beds in background with one man lying down. one man is seated on floor in background in front of door to the left of large heating unit. Partially hidden man seated to right of heater, upper right. Trunks and other materials are stored along walls.
Drawing 97.106.1FE on verso of same sheet.
Written in black ink, top left corner: 10-7-42. Written in black ink on top left image: Kawasaki & Mizutani / Playing "Go". Written in black ink on top center image: T. Shindo / Watching "Go". Written in black ink on middle left image: Mizutani. Written in black ink on middle center image: Playing card. Written in black ink on middle right image: H. Kimura. Written in black ink on bottom image: Barrack interior, 10-7-42 / 8:20 PM.
All requests for permission to publish, reproduce, or quote from materials in this collection must be submitted to the Collections Management & Access Unit at the Japanese American National Museum (firstname.lastname@example.com).


text:
Last year, for Liam's birthday, we took a trip to Vienna's Zoom children's museum. We had a great time, and we meant to go back, but we never did. But, when Liam's birthday came around again, we thought, "Aha! Let's go back!" What a great way to celebrate (again).
And, we had a great time when we went back yesterday. Again, the kids ran themselves into happy exhaustion (B's comment was, "Whew! This place is tiring!"). The boys got to have a lot of freedom, and really enjoyed it.
But, last year we went on a weekday, and this year we went on a Saturday. It was a lot more crowded. We had to supervise them a bit more closely (although that was also, in part, because they're bigger and I wanted to make sure they weren't knocking toddlers over as they ran around), there wasn't an opportunity for them to try each thing, and they didn't spend as much time playing together (they split up at the beginning, and the crowd was such that they didn't reconnect for a while).
Still, we had great fun, and it was a fun way to celebrate Liam's second birthday. But it's even more special during the week.


text:
Did you know…if you consume iron rich food with vitamin C rich food, it will help your body to absorb the iron better?
Why is Iron so important?
Iron is extremely important to our bodies as they make red blood cells which carry oxygen around our bodies. Iron is simply an essential mineral. Some good sources of iron are meat, beans, dried fruit, soybean flour, curly kale, spinach, watercress, beans etc.
- Helps to preserve the immune system
- Helps to regulate our body temperature
- Boosts the formation of haemoglobin
- Improves muscle function
- Treats anaemia
- Gets rid of fatigue


text:
Transition from an aid recipient to a donor
- Systematic support programs from the government
- Highly competitive educational system
- Promising future and worldclass technology
- 'Korean wave (Hallyu)' showcases Korean rich cultures across the globe
- High life satisfaction reported by international students
- Employment and career development and support for international students
- Transition from an aid recipient to a donor
Korea has successfully managed to make the transition from a recipient of services to a donor country.
Despite economic poverty in the 1960s, Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth to become a major economic powerhouse today (Ranked 11th in the world by nominal GDP in 2015, IMF)
Despite economic poverty in the 1960s, Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth to become a major economic powerhouse today (Ranked 11th in the world by nominal GDP in 2015, IMF)
Economic development of Korea
GNI(Gross National Income) per capita
the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country
<Source: Economy Statistics System>
From a recipient to a donor
· 1945~1999, received around 127 billion US dollars
· 1995, removed from the World Bank's list of recipient nations
· 2008, exceeded 1_trillion KRW for Economic Development Cooperation Fund
· 2009, joined the OECD/DAC(Development Assistance Committee)
Cases of ODA(Official Development Assistance) supported by Korea
Solar Power Station
in Mozambique
in Mozambique
A new embankment off
the Mekong River in Laos
the Mekong River in Laos
Recovery from typhoon
Haiyan in the Philippines
Haiyan in the Philippines
<Source : www.odaKorea.go.kr>
Education has been a key factor in Korea's rapid economic growth over the past four decades. We hope to share information about education possibilities in Korea through the Korean government's "Study in Korea Project".
Last modified : 2016-06-23


text:
by Joachim MacEbong
Much has been said about the size of government and the cost of governance at every level, and many continue to wonder if Nigeria gets value for all the money that goes into maintaining its public service every year, which is the lion share of the budget. A lot of this money goes to our federal ministries, and what follows is an attempt to summarise their activities and impact as the year draws to a close.
We proceed in alphabetical order.
Agriculture: A major push for Akinwunmi Adesina has been the promotion of cassava, especially cassava bread. Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava in the world, and the aim is to make it the largest processor of the crop globally as well. So much so, in fact, that it has been decreed that 40% of cassava should be used in bread, and the import duty on wheat has been raised as well. Similar interventions are on-going for rice, sorghum, cocoa, cotton and oil palm. Fertiliser is now sold directly to farmers, eliminating middle men and rent seekers.
Aviation: It has been a controversial year for Princess Stella Oduah, as the state of the sector once again came under intense scrutiny. The Dana crash on June 3rd and the handling of the aftermath cast further doubts over the safety of Nigeria's airspace, and the decision to briefly shut down Arik Air over debts owed to the Federal Government led to accusations of corruption against her by the airline. The row with the British government over landing slots at Heathrow, and with British Airways over disparity in fares paid by Nigerians in relation to other West African countries, was a successful attempt to play to the gallery and ignorance of the issues.
Communication Technology: Omobola Johnson's ministry has been focused on creating an enabling environment that will accelerate the penetration of broadband technology in Nigeria, crucial to liberating the creative potential of young people all over the country, as well as putting together a new national ICT policy. The extent to which she has succeeded or not is a matter for some debate, but it is safe to say that based on her credentials on assuming office, the past 18 months have not been the success many hoped it would be.
Defence: The ministry which gets a large chunk of Nigeria's budget, has been without a minister since June 22nd, when President Jonathan removed Bello Mohammed in a reshuffle of security agencies. That reshuffle also saw the now late former National Security Adviser, Owoeye Azazi, make way for Sambo Dasuki, but the President has not seen it fit to replace Bello Mohammed. There is nothing to suggest he should be in a hurry to, neither is there any suggestion that the trillion naira security budget delivers anything other than insecurity. Boko Haram divides Nigeria into two, one attack at a time, and not even the Finance Minister's mother is safe from kidnap.
Education: To be perfectly honest, Ruqqayatu Rufai has a thankless job, trying to stem the tide of decades of educational neglect at every level. With greater than 80% of school leavers unable to attain the minimum requirements in national exams in recent years, the chickens have well and truly come home to roost. The start of the Almajiri education programme, which should comprise 400 schools by 2015, is a first step to reducing the ranks of the next generation of militants. Capacity building for teachers at all levels has been prioritised, and new changes in the curriculum have been pushed through. It will take years to see the fruits of these measures, but there is no substitute for action.
Environment: Given the increased environmental challenges Nigeria is beginning to face from climate change, desertification and floods, this ministry will become increasingly important in the years ahead. For now, however, it doesn't appear to have the funding it needs to carry out its duties. Notwithstanding, the fight against desert encroachment continues with 6 million new trees planted in Northern states, and several steps are being taken to address issues of climate change, like the development of a National Policy on Climate change, guidelines for the implementation of a Clean Development Mechanism, and the upgrade of the Special Climate change unit to a full department. A lot more needs to be done in the area of preventing and cleaning up the several oil spills which occur in the Niger Delta, and preparing for floods, which are more and more common.
Finance: When she is not battling to reduce the high recurrent expenditure at Federal level, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is battling to reduce the graft in the subsidy process, or battling to save some of the nation's oil receipts for a rainy day. It has been a year of battles for the former World Bank VP in her second coming. Shorn of the staunch support she got from her first principal, she fights an increasingly lonely battle to keep the treasury from falling completely into the hands of those who would finally empty it. It is a battle that has come at a personal cost, with the kidnap of her mother earlier this month, and while not all her decisions have been popular, there is little doubt that things would be much worse in her absence. Reforming the unreformable indeed.
Foreign Affairs: The diplomatic spat with South Africa over yellow fever cards is just the most visible sign of a more aggressive foreign policy under Gbenga Ashiru, in which Nigeria is less likely to take perceived slights lying down. Hopefully, this attitude is extended to the many badly run Nigerian embassies all over the world.
Health: This ministry claims some improvement in child and maternal mortality rates, but diseases like polio, measles and yellow fever still give cause for concern. There is more private money coming into healthcare especially at tertiary level, so the hope is that one day our elite will not have to go abroad every time they need medical treatment.
Information: If defending every government policy, no matter how indefensible, is the job of the Minister of Information, then Labaran Maku has done well. Enough said.
Justice: Bello Adoke has followed the footsteps of Michael Aondoakaa, in terms of a non-existent fight against corruption. His role in the near cancellation of the Manitoba contract, which is critical to the power reform agenda, clearly marks him out as an enemy of Nigeria's progress.
Labour: Emeka Wogu was heavily involved in the negotiations with labour unions during the subsidy protests in January, often with negative results, as his comments showcased the arrogance of the average government official. He was put in charge of the white paper committee to look into the report of the Task Force headed by Nuhu Ribadu, and it has been revealed that one of the companies that took fraudulent subsidy payments – Pinnacle contractors – amounting to N2.7 billion has himself as a director, along with members of his family. Why is Wogu still in office?
Lands and Urban development: Nigeria's housing deficit is put at 17 million homes, and the job of this ministry is to reduce that figure, but the pace at which the units are being built can barely make a dent in the demand. Also, without the widespread use of mortgage facilities and a review of the Land Use Act, it is difficult to see how the majority of Nigerians can become home owners, especially with the cost of these 'low cost' houses. Perhaps Ama Pepple can take a few pointers from this article by Nasir El-Rufai.
– We shall continue with the concluding part of this review.


text:
TFCon this year comes right after my birthday! I'm getting hyped for it even though we've still got a few months.
I've been a few years in a row now, and it's awesome, starting to know more and more people there so it's fun for buying TF stuff and socializing.
Who else is coming? What features, toy finds are you looking forward to most? I'm trying to complete a few G1 figures (Friday night's parts party and the dealer room) and will be after the Skywarp/Starscream Alternity figures.
Don't forget to bring your spare accessories if you're coming for the Friday night, the more the parts the better the trading!


text:
Jennifer Kasman
Attorney and Business Expert
Nicole is "the go-to" for any professional seeking more knowledge about the television industry, newsroom or expert appearances. I also found her to be an incredible resource for general coaching and social media/content planning. My time working with Nicole and her company was worth every penny and more!
Arthur DiCasimirro
"Highly recommend!! Nicole Sellars knows her stuff! My session with her covered everything from blog content ideas to who I should be sending my demo reel to to how to restructure my resume. Nicole covered tons of ground. TONS! Definitely worth the price! Take advantage of the TV Hosting Academy's packages because you will not just want one training session!"
Jennifer Eckhart
TV Journalist for FOX Business Network
"Nicole Sellars truly provides you the necessary skill set to help take your career to the next level. Her one-on-one coaching and expertise in the media industry is invaluable. As a young professional in the TV news industry, Nicole earns my highest recommendation."
Nicole Capolarello
Reporter for WBOC-TV- FOX 21(Maryland)
"Nicole is one of the greatest mentors I could ask for and is always there when I need her help. Her support and advice is always helpful and people should definitely take the time to look into the TV Hosting Academy if they are aspiring to break into the broadcasting field."
Andrew Cornelius
TV Host- Let's Eat It!
"Hosting is kind of a heightened version of yourself. It's sometimes labeled as reality TV but it's not that. It's those pithy moments on camera – Nicole found a way to showcase them in my demo reel."
Chelsea Irizarry
Multimedia Journalist at FiOS1 News Long Island
"Highly recommend! Nicole will help you every step of the way – from writing critiques, reading off the teleprompter to helping you put a resume reel together! She's an amazing mentor and genuinely wants to help you succeed. She's extremely knowledgeable about the industry and helps steer you in the best direction!"
George Bickerstaff
Chairman/ Founder/ Investor – ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Executive Chairman and Co-Founder-The Global Leaders
"Nicole and her team are creative, organized, professional, and dependable. They really help to launch and communicate in a professional way leadership stories and innovations that will help many people. The feedback on her work has been exceptional."
Rana Arefieg
Pharmaceutical Sales Executive; Founder and President of Global Innovations and The Global Diabetes Alliance
"Nicole is a stellar media expert with an in-depth understanding of technology and healthcare. She "owns" her projects and delivers results. Nicole played an integral role in Global Innovations and has helped launch the "MyClick" integrated diabetes device to the broad markets. Companies can count on Trend E News Media to deliver a profitable product with regard to Video Content Marketing."
Terrie Magro
The highlight video they [Trend E News Media] created has been an excellent tool for the foundation to educate the general public on how important every dollar donated is to help the children and their families. The video link will be added to each grant the foundation applies for. It was concise and direct, yet touching and heartwarming!"
Jeff Mucci
RCR Wireless News – CEO & Editorial Director
Arden Operating Company, LLC – Managing Partner
"Nicole was exceptional in her ability to produce a weekly news segment for RCR Wireless News, which in turn provided a roadmap for us as we move from a traditional print and online news leader to a multimedia news source."


text:
i know i am a luddite, but i'm sure the hatred goes both ways. technology despises me. my ipod has a self-destruct button (namely, the big round one in the middle). my experia responds to the fabric of my jeans pocket but not my fingers. my laptop tells me, 'ah, screw you. oh wait. you know what? your bloody essay too'.
the other day my parents bought themselves cameras. i was all sniffly about it. 'what's the point of a good camera? you've got eyes, you've got memory, and you've got nostalgia to photoshop whatever you choose to remember.' but needless to say i was simply being crabby. me buying a camera would be a waste of money; that argument extends no further.
so, back in singapore and scowling at my ipod, i try my hand at cpr. the blackout with the apple logo in the center is as hopeless as the windows blue screen of death. i swallow the urge to hurl the offending turd at my wall, but with each failure i sense primal rage taking over. no, i must assert myself. technology has done me no justice. but, if i'm gonna eventually give in and pay for repairs, i mustn't break the bloody thing. so i toss the ipod on my bed and sit very vehemently on it. neither evil nor good transpires. i am futility embodied.
so i acquiesce. a month ago, when my ipod first started getting cranky, i used my voice recorder. that was like calling a pager a handphone – and my ultra-chic friends in tokyo never forgave me for that – but i owe my graduation to that scrap of metal. after all, it had recordings of some important civil law lectures i attended, recordings i listened to on various sleepless nights. today, in ditching the ipod and adopting the voice recorder as my first choice, i gleefully delete all lectures, and suddenly realise i only have 15 songs available. so i start itunes, try to load more music. no luck. my laptop says there is something wrong with the usb connection.
too tired to hurl the damn thing against the wall, i head for lunch. not a long journey. my very short playlist does not have to repeat itself, and out comes the ecstasy that is the red hot chili peppers, smash mouth, oasis, slash, eric clapton, guns and roses… before long i catch myself singing along. the bus is a mobile babel, all myriad ethnicities and intimate distance. the sun is out. were i to complain, i'd just be less than grateful.
– kats on thursday


text:
* Riksbank leaves rates unchanged
* Surprises markets with continued easing bias
* Graphic on inflation, crown - bit.ly/2lPlJKy (Adds comments from Riksbank governor)
By Johan Ahlander and Simon Johnson
STOCKHOLM, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Sweden's central bank held rates unchanged at -0.50 percent on Wednesday but retained its view that more cuts could come, surprising markets which had expected it would signal that five years of ever looser policy had come to an end.
Negative interest rates and a hefty quantitative easing programme are looking increasingly out of sync with a Swedish economy in high gear.
But the Riksbank is worried a global recovery could be tripped up by Brexit, slower growth in Europe and a more protectionist United States. It also knows that signals of tighter policy could lead to a stronger crown currency.
"Should it be the case that they (the United States) move toward increased protectionism, that would probably lead at some point to lower growth which is not good for Sweden which has large exports and imports," Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingve said at a news conference.
"What will happen when it comes to Brexit is still somewhat unclear... We have elections in France, Holland and Germany. It is unclear what that will mean in terms of economic policy," he said.
The crown weakened from around 9.44 to the euro to 9.46 shortly after the decision.
"The Riksbank was a little more dovish than expected, on the margin," Knut Hallberg, economist at Swedbank, said. "Today's decision shows the Riksbank will be very cautious in its roll back (of expansive monetary policy)."
Many analysts had expected the Riksbank to signal it now saw inflation on firmer ground and that its next move would be to shift toward tighter policy, if very slowly.
After years of undershooting, inflation was nudging the 2 percent target in December, while other domestic data has prompted analysts to forecast economic growth this year near 3 percent - well above trend. < bit.ly/2lPlJKy >
However, the central bank retained its short term easing bias and the crown currency weakened.
"The repo rate path reflects the fact that there is still a greater probability that the rate will be cut than that it will be raised in the near term," the Riksbank said in a statement.
The central bank renewed a mandate for Governor Ingves to intervene in the currency market should the crown currency strengthen sharply and choke off the recent uptick in inflation.
And in what analysts said was a further dovish signal, it adjusted downward its view of the long term normal interest rate.
All 18 analysts in a Reuters poll had forecast no change in current policy. ($1 = 8.9648 Swedish crowns)
Reporting by Stockholm Newsroom; Editing by Jeremy Gaunt


text:
Previous Life Tidbits:
7 Ways to Help Conquer Worries
Gratitude Can Transform Your Life
Be Your Own Best Friend
I welcome any questions, sharing or comments you may have.
By Danielle Manibog
"It's all about the small things in life 'tidbits' that make us who we are"
Live, Laugh, Love
© Copyright 2014-2018 -Tidbits 4a Better Life. All rights reserved.


text:
This is an owner's appeal of the city order which ordered her dog be euthanized or banished from city limits because the dog bit a person without provocation. The order had been affirmed by the superior court and is now in front of the state Supreme Court. Haggblom argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it does not provide meaningful process, and is too vague because it does not explicitly offer the alternative of banishment from city limits. This court found that due process was satisfied and that the ordinance is constitutionally clear, and thus affirms the order.
A dog was impounded and adopted after being picked up by animal control officers. The owners of the dog brought suit over the adoption of their dog. The trial court dismissed the suit and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the dog's owners failed to state a claim.
Louisiana appeals court affirmed trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to adequately link her stomach ailment with a burger purchased from Burger King and thus could not sustain an action that sought recovery of alleged damages suffering due to food poisoning.
The custody of an eleven year old German wirehaired pointer was the central issue in this Vermont divorce case. While both parties testified to their strong emotional ties to the dog and to the care that each spouse provided, the Superior Court awarded custody to the husband. The wife appealed the Superior Court's decision arguing that the court erred in refusing a joint arrangement, that the court's finding was not supported by the evidence, and that this finding provided an arbitrary basis for award. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that the family court division could consider factors not set out in 15 V.S.A. § 751(b); specifically, the welfare of the animal and the emotional connection between the animal and each spouse. The court found that both parties were afforded an opportunity to put on evidence regarding both factors without restriction in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court of Vermont also held that the Superior Court was correct in its statement that the family division could not enforce a visitation or shared custody order for companion animals. Unlike child custody matters, the court said, there is no legislative authority for the court to play a continuing role in the supervision of the parties with respect to the care and sharing of a companion animal. The Superior Court's decision of awarding custody to the husband was therefore affirmed.
In this Florida case, the 82-year-old defendant was convicted of a third-degree felony animal cruelty violation (section 828.12(2)) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Defendant had his dog on leash and approached too close to a cat, whereupon the leashed dog began to attack the cat. In reversing the decision, the appellate court found that defendant's conduct did not rise to a criminal level, as it was "objectively unlikely" that a leashed dog walking with his owner would inflict such damage. Further, while the issue of sentencing was rendered moot by the reversal, the court found the consideration of a petition with approximately 3,000 signatures demanding the maximum sentence, "an affront to the very notion of due process of law . . ."
Plaintiff was walking her dog in an area of state where dogs go off-leash. Plaintiff and defendant were back in the parking lot talking when defendant's dog, who was still off-leash, ran into her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The appellate court found that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to meet the burden establishing that the dog had a proclivity to run into people and knock them over. While testimony showed that the dog (Quinn) routinely ran up to people and put his paws on their chest to "greet" them, this was different than a propensity to knock people down. The court found that the behavior of jumping on people "was not the behavior that resulted in plaintiff's injury, and plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that defendant had notice of a proclivity by Quinn to run into people and knock them over. . ." The court also noted that the dog's rambunctious behavior, occurring at a dog park where dogs freely run around, was insufficient to establish vicious propensities. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.
Plaintiff Jon Hammer is the owner of a pure-bred Brittany Spaniel which has a natural, undocked tail approximately ten (10) inches long. He contends that tail docking is a form of animal cruelty, and that the practical effect of defendant American Kennel Club's tail standards for Brittany Spaniels is to effectively exclude his dog from meaningfully competing shows unless he complies with what he perceives as an unfair and discriminatory practice. Specifically, his amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the complained-of standard (1) unlawfully discriminates against plaintiff by effectively precluding him from entering his dog in breed competitions, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, (3) violates Agriculture and Markets Law § 353, and (4) is null and void as in derogation of law; he further seeks an injunction prohibiting defendants from applying, enforcing or utilizing the standard. The court held that plaintiff lacked standing to obtain any of the civil remedies he sought for the alleged violation of Agriculture and Markets Law Section 353. The Legislature's inclusion of a complete scheme for enforcement of its provisions precludes the possibility that it intended enforcement by private individuals as well. The dissent disagreed with the majority's standing analysis, finding that plaintiff's object is not to privately enforce § 353, insofar as seeking to have the defendants' prosecuted for cruelty. Rather, plaintiff was seeking a declaration that the AKC's standard for judging the Brittany Spaniel deprives him of a benefit of membership on the basis of his unwillingness to violate a state law and, thus, he wanted to enjoin defendants from enforcing that standard against him. The dissent found that whether tail docking for purely cosmetic reasons violates § 353 is solely a question of law and entirely appropriate for a declaratory judgment. Cosmetic docking of tails was wholly unjustifiable under the law in the dissent's eyes. While plaintiff pointed out that docking may serve some purposes for hunting dogs, it is not a justification for docking the tails of non-hunting dogs, such as plaintiff's, for purposes of AKC competitions.
Plaintiff sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against the American Kennel Club (AKC) for use of standards in dog show competitions for Brittany Spaniel dogs that require the docking of their tails. The issue in this appeal is whether Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 grants plaintiff, who wishes to enter his dog and compete without penalty in breed contests, a private right of action to preclude defendants from using a standard that encourages him to "dock" his Brittany Spaniel's tail. The Court of Appeals concluded that it would be inconsistent with the applicable legislative scheme to imply a private right of action in plaintiff's favor because the statute does not, either expressly or impliedly, incorporate a method for private citizens to obtain civil relief. In light of the comprehensive statutory enforcement scheme, recognition of a private civil right of action is incompatible with the mechanisms chosen by the Legislature.
The five-year-old child hopped a fence, which was in disrepair, into his neighbor's yard to retrieve a ball. As he was trying to leave, he was severely bitten by a pit bull that the neighbor was keeping for his son. In reversing the judgment in part, the court held that the keeping of a pit bull might be a violation of Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances tit. 2, ch. 1, § (2)(d) (1973), so the child's negligence per se theory was actionable. The court held that the neighbor was the dog's owner as a matter of law under the dog-bite statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 4. sec. 42.1 (1981).
This case held that a state statute permitting the control and ultimate destruction of dangerous animals does not preclude municipal controls that add to the breadth of public powers without regulating conditions expressly prohibited by statute. In the case, a dog owner sought review of municipal animal control division's order for destruction of his dog. The Court of Appeals held that the ordinance providing for destruction of dangerous dog did not conflict with statute and thus was not preempted by statute. The court stated that, after comparing the ordinance with the state statute, it was evident that the local provision is merely additional and complementary to the statute, permitting local action that the state statute does not prohibit. In fact, state law expressly provides for local regulation, giving municipalities full authority to regulate "potentially dangerous dogs," as long as the regulations are not breed-specific.
While walking his dog one evening, the plaintiff's husband was attacked by fire ants. In an attempt to remove the ants off his person, the plaintiff's husband collapsed in the shower. Two days later, he died. As a representative for her husband's estate and in her own capacity, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against her landlord. After the trial court granted the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. Affirming the lower court's decision, the appeals court reasoned that since the landlord did not harbor, possess, or introduce the fire ants onto the premises, the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiff.
Judie Hansen petitions for review of a final decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. Because the 8th Circuit has no jurisdiction over the matter, the petition is dismissed.
Plaintiffs claim their pet dog, Gabby, died of medical complications after she was negligently subjected to extreme heat for an extended period of time at The Barkery, a dog grooming business. The Court observed that there is no New Jersey precedent permitting a pet owner to recover non-economic damages when a pet is negligently injured or killed; therefore, the court looked policy and rationale which underlies similar cases in this and other jurisdictions. The Court concluded that the difficulty in quantifying the emotional value of a companion pet and the risk that a negligent tortfeasor will be exposed to extraordinary and unrealistic damage claims weighed against allowing damages. Most significantly, the court found that public policy mitigated against allowing emotional distress and loss of companionship damages, which are unavailable for the loss of a child or spouse, for the loss of a pet dog.
In January of 2005, the Detroit City Council passed an ordinance granting special police powers to officers working in the Animal Control Division (ACD). The ordinance allowed ACD officers to have "the right of entry without a warrant" for the purpose of capturing or restraining any animal. Detroit residents filed a petition arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional and the court granted a petition for a preliminary injunction on the basis that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment. Following the injunction a number of residents filed suit seeking damages against the City of Detroit arguing that the City improperly seized their pets and failed to provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Lastly, the residents argued that the City operated its animal shelter in a "grossly negligent manner" after numerous dogs suffered severe illnesses after having been taken to the shelter for quarantine by the ACD. The court reviewed the testimonies of the individual residents who claimed that their pets had been improperly seized and determined that the seizures of the pets were "objectionably reasonable." In order to determine whether the seizures were "objectionably reasonable" the court stated that it "must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individuals Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake by analyzing the totality of the circumstances." Ultimately, the court found that it was reasonable for the officers to have seize the pets in each situation based on the facts presented and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit. Finally, the court reviewed the residents' arguments pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment and held that because the vast majority of the pets were found "unrestrained, unlicensed, abandoned by their owner, or accused of biting another animal or human," the City's interest in protecting the public was far greater than any "pre-seizure due process owed to the plaintiffs." As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. With regard to the residents' claim about the state of the City's animal shelter, the court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the claim.
In this Indiana case, the Hardsaws appeal a jury verdict in favor of the Courtneys stemming from their complaint for damages against the Hardsaws after their daughter Kimberly was attacked and bitten by the Hardsaws' dog who was under the supervision of the Hardsaw's 12-year-old daughter at the time of the attack. The Courtneys alleged negligent entrustment. On appeal, the Hardaws argue that, as a matter of law, absent evidence of prior viciousness, they could not have been negligent in entrusting Buster to their daughter and, thus, that this case should not have been submitted to the jury. The court found that the question of whether owner's entrustment of the control and restraint of a dog to a child was reasonable under the circumstances is a question for the jury. Here, the dog was restrained in the yard by a chain, but he was left under the care and supervision of a twelve-year-old child who had no previous experience supervising him. The judgment was affirmed.
Defendants were convicted by the Mitchell Superior Court, Robert Culpepper, Jr., Senior Judge, of dogfighting and gambling and two of the defendants were convicted of commercial gambling, and they appealed. The Supreme Court, Clarke, J., held that: (1) the statute prohibiting dogfighting is not unconstitutionally vague, and does not violate equal protection; (2) penalty provided for violating the dogfighting statute does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment; (3) evidence was sufficient to support convictions; (4) dogfighting is not as a matter of law a lesser included offense of commercial gambling; and (5) dogfighting was not as a matter of fact a lesser included offense of commercial gambling.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages based on his allegedly unlawful discharge from employment in Department of Air Force. U.S. Supreme Court reviewed immunity issues and held that while presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded only where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
In this South Carolina case, the court considered the meaning of the term "or" in the state's dog bite statute, SC ST 47-3-110, and whether that word allows a plaintiff to pursue a statutory claim against the owner of the dog while that dog is in the care of another. The facts concerned a veterinary assistant who sued a county sheriff's officer after she was bitten by a police dog while the dog was kenneled at the veterinary clinic where she worked. The lower court granted summary judgment for the sheriff's office. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. Based on a plain language reading of the statute, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended to allow a claim against the owner of the dog when another person has the dog in his care or keeping.
A mail carrier was attacked by two dogs, and sued the dogs' owners for negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that a dog owner is not liable unless there is evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity and that the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous.
Plaintiffs filed suit against a veterinarian and a number of police officers who were involved in their prosecution of animal cruelty. Plaintiffs Switf and Hatlee worked together on a Echo Valley Ranch where they provided care and boarding for horses. In February 2012, Officer Smith went to Echo Valley Ranch to conduct a welfare check on the horses. Officer Smith noticed that the horses seemed to be in poor condition, so he requested that a veternarian visis the ranch to inspect the horses. Dr. Olds, a local veterinarian, visited the ranch and wrote a report that suggested that the horses be seized due to their current state. Officer Smith initially served plaintiffs with a warning but after returning to the ranch and noticing that the horses' condition had worsened, the horses were seized and plaintiffs were charged with animal cruelty. In this case, plaintiffs argued that the veterinarian had wrote the medical report for a "publicity stunt" and that this report influenced Officer's Smith's decision to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty. The court ultimately found that the veterinarian's report was not made as a "publicity stunt," especially due to the fact that the report was filed privately and not made available to the public. Also, the court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the veterinarian and the officers were working with one another in a "conspiracy" to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty.
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled "transgenic animals". In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent's appeal from the appellant's decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act .
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track.
While the Moneys (Defendants) were on vacation, they boarded their dog at Peppertree Animal Clinic (Peppertree). On June 16, 1990, Julie Hass (Plaintiff), an employee of Peppertree, was bitten by the dog while walking him. The Court reverses the Defendants' summary judgment and remands to the trial court because the dog bite statute applies a strict liability standard and that the owner of a dog is only the person who has legal right to the dog.
Plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, and sued owner for negligently failing to confine cow. The Supreme Court held that injury claims could only proceed under strict liability theory based on owner's knowledge of animal's vicious propensities. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious propensity, or that owner knew of propensity, thus, owner was not liable. This order was Reversed by Hastings v. Sauve , 2013 WL 1829834 (N.Y., 2013).
After plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, she sued farm owner, operator of cattle-shipping business, and operator's assistant, alleging that defendants were negligent in not properly confining cow to its pasture. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious or abnormal propensity, or that cow's owner knew of propensity, as required to support a strict liability claim. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court held that a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept.
In the case of Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 (1956), a group of Navajo Indians living in Utah sued the government under the Federal Torts Claim Act, to recover the confiscation and destruction of horses and burros that were kept as pets and uniquely valued to the owners. The federal agents confiscated these animals and then sold them to a glue factory. The petitioners vehemently argued that these horses had unique and sentimental value to them, and served as a means of income to yield crops. Although the government agents argued that they were authorized to engage in this taking pursuant to the Utah Abandoned Horse Slaughter Act, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court awarded the petitioners a judgment of $100,000 based on the fair market value, consequential damages for deprivation of use, and "mental pain and suffering" of the petitioners. The decision was reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to assess damages with sufficient particularity.
This Mississippi Supreme Court decision considers the construction of a zoning ordinance that prohibits the "keeping or raising poultry" in the "R-1 Residential District" of Madison County. The property owner, Hatfield, was found to be violating R-1 by the Madison County Board of Supervisors after county officials found around 60 "ducks, geese and other fowl" on this property. Hatfield appealed this decision to the Circuit Court as arbitrary and capricious based on an unconstitutionally vague ordinance section. The Circuit Court, as the reviewing appellate body for the ordinance violation, found the Board's decision was supported by evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. On appeal by Hatfield, the Supreme Court first observed that there are two districts in appellant's subdivision: Agricultural and Residential. In the Agricultural Districts, breeding, raising, and feeding fowl is an expressly permitted use. Appellant lives the zoned Residential Estate District. While the R-1 zoning allows "livestock" and "grazing livestock" on tracts of land one acre or greater, it does not allow the breeding, raising, and feeding chickens, ducks, or other fowl as a permitted use. Hatfield suggested that grazing/livestock section (Section 601) could be interpreted to include poultry, fowl, and/or birds. However, the Supreme Court found that position unreasonable since the examples listed in the code section are "obviously limited to large, four-legged, hoofed animals." This is further supported by the fact raising fowl is expressly permitted in one district, but not the other. Thus, the Ordinance was sufficiently clear and not manifestly unreasonable. The circuit court's decision was affirmed.
The plaintiff in this case applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to keep up to five tigers on her property, but the county planning commission and board of supervisors denied her application. In her application, plaintiff indicates that the project would include three tiger enclosures, a 13,500-square-foot arena with a roof over 14 feet in height at its highest point, with the area surrounded by an eight-foot-high chain link fence encompassing over seven acres. The captive tigers would be used in the entertainment industry: movie sets, television commercials, and still photography. In denying the application, the Board found that the plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary for a CUP: the project is compatible with the planned uses in the general area, and the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. The court noted that plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating her entitlement to the permit. In fact, the court noted that while plaintiff claims "an unblemished safety record," she submitted videos showing tigers "roaming freely in the backyard of her Beverly Hills home" and tigers posing with plaintiff and her sister on the beach. The court observed that, "[h]er well-intentioned desire to own [the tigers] does not trump her neighbors' right to safety and peace of mind." The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
This case addresses whether the Secretary of Agriculture intended to include "animal acts" under the AWA. Animal acts are any performance of animals where such animals are trained to perform some behavior or action or are part of a show, performance, or exhibition. Defendant presented an animal act with dogs and ponies to paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. Defendant asserted that he did not "exhibit" animals simply by showing dogs and ponies and argued that the Secretary unconstitutionally added "animal acts" to the AWA. The court held that the inclusion of "animal acts" was authorized as"[t]he words 'includes' and 'such as' [in the AWA] point convincingly to the conclusion that the listing of types of exhibitions in the statutory text was intended to be but partial and illustrative."
Defendants stipulated that they were involved in cockfights and were prosecuted for numerous violations of § 1109(1)(d), part of Hawaii's cruelty to animals statute. The reviewing court found that the statute was not vague, and was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process with regard to the charge against defendants; nor was the statute overly broad as applied to defendants.
Defendants (USFWS and rancher owners) filed a motion to dismiss the 'Alala bird and strike its name from the plaintiffs' complaint as well a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The District Court held that, as a matter of first impression, the endangered 'Alala bird was not a 'person' within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) citizen suit provision. However, the Court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions on the ground that plaintiffs' counsel acted improperly in filing a complaint that named the 'Alala as a party, finding that there is no evidence plaintiffs named the 'Alala for an improper purpose. Defendant's motion for a more definite statement was granted to provide greater specificity to pinpoint those areas within the essential habitat locations that may be affected.
Plaintiff's complaint was based on government employees' duty to exercise reasonable care in the execution of their official duties. Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found the action was barred by three exceptions to the Federal Torts Claims Act: the misrepresentation exception, the discretionary exception, and the interference with contracts exception. Government motion was granted.
An 8-year-old girl suffered injuries as a result of being bitten by a dog that escaped from a veterinarian clinic. The girl sued the clinic and the owner of the dog, but the owner was granted a motion for summary judgment because she did not have care or dominion over the animal at the time of the injury; this decision was then appealed. The Second District Appellate Court of Illinois held the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/16) did not impose strict liability on a dog owner solely because he or she was the legal owner of a dog. The lower court's decision was therefore affirmed because there was no reasonable or factual basis to impose liability.
Defendant appeals an order with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office to destroy his dogs under Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. More specifically, defendant claims reversible error after he was denied a jury trial. Defendant's three dogs were seized after they attacked an individual riding a bicycle in front of defendant's residence. After a hearing, the dogs were found to be dangerous pursuant to Section 822.041 related to dogs causing serious bodily injury to a person. The judge then ordered the dogs to be humanely destroyed. Hayes appealed the order and requested a jury trial, which was objected to by the Henderson County Attorney's Office and sustained by the court. The dogs were found to be dangerous at a bench trial and ordered humanely euthanized, while defendant was ordered to pay $2,780 to the county. On appeal, defendant argues the county court erred in removing his case from the jury trial docket. The court now considers two questions: "(1) whether the owner of a dog ordered to be humanely destroyed by a justice, county, or municipal court judge, pursuant to Chapter 822, subchapter A, of the Texas Health and Safety Code, has the right to appeal such order; and (2) if an appeal is allowed, whether a jury can be requested to hear the de novo appeal." The court here declined to adopt the state's interpretation that the statute's silence as to a right of appeal indicates that the legislature eliminated that right. In fact, the court observed Subchapter A of Chapter 822 dealing with less serious "dangerous dogs," allows a party to appeal a dangerous dog finding. The court found it would be inconsistent that the more severe Subchapter D denies an appeal of right where the less severe subchapter grants it, especially where a forfeiture of property occurs (i.e., dogs). As to the right to jury trial, the court found Chapter 822 silent on that issue. However, the court found the order for seizure and destruction of defendant's "special personal property" guaranteed him a trial by jury under Article I of the Texas Constitution. The trial court's Final Order was reversed and the case was remanded to county court.
Syllabus by the Court
In an action to enjoin the City of Overland Park from enforcing an ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city, the record is examined and it is held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
A dog that chased and pinned a man was shot by a police officer who had been called for assistance. The dog owner instituted an action against the police officer, the police chief and the city. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the police officer, police chief and city, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the police officer was entitled to statutory immunity.
Appellees sued appellant for damages after he poisoned three of their dogs. The Court held that an owner has an action and remedy against a trespasser for damages resulting from injuries inflicted upon dogs because they are property. The Court elaborated on the true rule in determining the value of dogs, explaining that It may be either a market value or some special or pecuniary value to the owner. The Court allowed actual damages.
The plaintiff lived in Hemmingway's old property, a museum, with 53 polydactyl cats (cats having more than the usual number of toes). The United States Department of Agriculture investigated and said that the plaintiff needed to get an exhibitor's license to show the cats, but that was not possible unless the cats were enclosed. Plaintiff sued the government in order to avoid the $200 per cat per day fines assessed, but the court held that the government has sovereign immunity from being sued.
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property. The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law. However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances. The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption by state and federal law should not have been found. Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted.
A car accident occurred and Plaintiffs, Jo Ellen Hendrickson and her husband were injured when her vehicle hit two horses that were on the roadway. Defendant Randall D. Grider owned the horses and Defendant Gartner owned the lot where Grider kept the horses. Defendant Cope is Gartner's son-in-law and acted as an intermediary between Gartner and Grider. The Hendrickson's filed a complaint against Grider, Cope, and Gartner and alleged that they were owners and/or keepers of horses under statute R.C. Chapter 951 and that they negligently allowed the horses to escape. Hendrickson sought damages for her injuries and a loss of consortium claim on her husbands' behalf. The Common Pleas Court, granted summary judgment for the Defendants. The Hendrickson's appealed. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District affirmed the Common Pleas Court. The Court of Appeals reasoned that: (1) neither defendant was "keeper" of horses within the meaning of the statute which governed liability for horses running at large on public roads; (2) even if the lot owner breached their duty by allowing the owner of the horses to keep the horses on her property before fencing was installed, such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries; and (3) the lot owner could not have reasonably foreseen that the horses would escape from a fenced-in lot and injure the motorist and, thus, she could not be held liable in negligence for the motorist's resulting injuries.
Dog owner brought claims of professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, reckless breach of a bailment contract, and emotional distress after her golder retriever, Bear, died following a routine neutering procedure. After the surgery, Bear was bloated and vomiting, and the owner alleged that the animal hospital failed to properly inform her of his condition. As a result, the owner treated Bear with a homeopathic remedy instead of the prescription medication given to her by the hospital and Bear's condition worsened and eventually caused his death.
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.
In 2013, Plaintiffs visited Defendants' zoo, the Cherokee Bear Zoo, in North Carolina where they observed four bears advertised as grizzly bears in what appeared to Plaintiffs as substandard conditions. As a result, Plaintiffs filed a citizen suit in federal district court alleging the Zoo's practice of keeping the bears was a taking of a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In essence, Plaintiffs contend the Zoo's conduct was a form of harassment under the ESA, and so they sought injunctive relief. After denying the Zoo's motions for summary judgment, the district court held a bench trial where the court ruled against Plaintiffs on the issue of the Zoo's liability under the ESA. The manner in which the bears were kept did not constitute a taking for purposes of the ESA. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, this Court first found Plaintiffs established Article III standing for an aesthetic injury. Second, the Court agreed with the district court that evidence showed these bears were grizzly bears. While the Defendant-Zoo's veterinarian testified at trial that they are European brown bears, the collective evidence including expert testimony, veterinary records, USDA reports, and the Zoo's own advertising justified the lower court's conclusion that the bears are threatened grizzly bears. As to the unlawful taking under the ESA, the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court's holding and remanded the case to district court. The legal analysis used by the court was incorrect because the court did not first determine whether the Zoo's practices were "generally accepted" before it applied the exclusion from the definition of harassment. The lower court based its conclusion on the fact that the Zoo met applicable minimum standards under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and did not explore whether these standards were "generally accepted." Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded.
This case concerns the regulatory authority of the Missouri Conservation Commission ("Commission"), which has authority over the control, management, restoration, conservation, and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state. The respondents in this case operate different selective breeding and private hunting facilities that rely on captive bred deer and elk ("cervids"). Respondent Hill co-owns the Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch which is a large hunting preserve and white-tailed deer breeding operation. Respondent Broadway owns a hunting preserve which offers three-day guided hunts of a variety of animals, including elk. Broadway also has a deer breeding operation. Respondent Grace owns a breeding facility for white-tailed deer, sika, and red deer. The respondents cannot operate their hunting preserves and captive breeding facilities without permits from the Missouri Department of Conservation, which all respondents have. Cervids can be infected with a fatal neurodegenerative disease known as chronic wasting disease (CWD). The first detection of the disease in Missouri was at Heartland Wildlife Ranches, which was eventually purchased by Respondent Broadway and renamed Winter Quarters Wildlife Ranch. Due to this, the Missouri Conservation Commission set up surveillance within 25 miles of the facility. From 2010 to 2013 the Commission found 10 free-ranging deer infected with CWD out of the 14,000 tested in the surveillance zone. Over the next three years the Commission detected CWD in 14 free-ranging deer, several of which were found near closed or currently operating captive cervid facilities. Attempting to eradicate CWD, the Commission proposed a series of regulatory amendments that were to take effect in January of 2015. The amendments were aimed at the captive cervid industry. The regulations relevant to this case banned the importation of cervids, imposed more rigorous fencing requirements, and imposed more rigorous recordkeeping and veterinary inspection requirements. Respondents brought an action suing the Appellants (the Missouri Conservation Commission) to prevent these regulations from going into effect. At trial, the circuit court declared that the regulations were invalid and enjoined the Commission from enforcing them. On appeal, the Commission raised three arguments. First, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred because Respondents' cervids are "game" and "wildlife resources of the state" and, therefore, can be regulated by the Commission under the Missouri Constitution. Second, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred because the Commission's authority to promulgate the regulations does not implicate or infringe on the Respondents' rights to farm. Third, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred by enjoining the Commission's enforcement of the new regulations against all people in Missouri, rather than only against the Respondents. The Respondents contend that captive cervids are not wildlife or game even though they are wild by nature because they are too domesticated and, therefore, akin to livestock. The Court rejects this contention and looks at the plain meaning of the terms "game" and "wildlife" and concludes that both terms plainly include all species that are wild by nature. The terms are not ambiguous. The Court points out that it would be unreasonable to hold that the Commission has constitutional authority to regulate individual cervids that are born free and still free-roaming but take away that authority when an individual cervid is considered domesticated. "The Court will not give a law a construction which would render it unreasonable when it is susceptible to a reasonable one." Furthermore, historically, the term "game" was broad enough to embrace all kinds of deer whether tame or wild. Captive cervids are therefore considered "game" and "wildlife" and the Commission has authority under the Missouri Constitution to regulate Respondents' captive cervids. Respondent' second contention is that they own the captive cervids and, therefore, the cervids are not resources of the state. The Court rejects this contention. The Commission has always regulated deer and elk owned by private parties. The Court holds that the phrase "resources of the state" unambiguously refers to resources within the entire geographical boundaries of the state. Therefore, Respondents' cervids are considered resources of the state. The Court agrees with the Commission's second contention that the regulations did not infringe on Respondents' right to farm. Respondents failed to show that they are engaged in farming and ranching practices and, therefore, cannot invoke the guarantee of the Missouri Constitution. The Court did not reach the Commission's third contention. Ultimately the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment in favor of Respondents and entered judgment in favor of Appellants on both counts.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712 (2000), extends protection to all birds covered by four migratory bird treaties, which, in relevant part, define migratory birds to include the family Anatidae (which includes the mute swan). Under the authority, delegated by Congress the Secretary of the Interior has published lists of protected migratory birds. The instant case arose when appellant Joyce Hill filed a law suit pro se in District Court claiming that the Secretary's regulation violated the MBTA in excluding mute swans from the List of Migratory Birds promulgated at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13 (2000). The District Court rejected Hill's claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. In reversing the the District Court's decision, the court found that the Secretary pointed to nothing in the statute, applicable treaties, or administrative record that justified the exclusion of mute swans from the List of Migratory Birds. It also ordered the Secretary's List of Migratory Birds, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13, insofar as the list excludes mute swans, to be vacated. This case more or less set the stage for the revisions to the MBTA in 2004 by Congress's passing of the MBTRA.
Appellant dog owners sought review of the decision from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which granted the motion to dismiss filed by appellee veterinarian on the basis that the breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on malpractice claims under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.11(A). On appeal, the court reversed and held that § 2305.11(A) applied only to physicians, attorneys, and other professional specifically delineated in the statute, not veterinarians. The court reversed the dismissal of the owners' breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian and remanded for further proceedings.
A dealer raised exotic animals (mainly big cats), and USDA ordered that the dangerous ones be fenced, with fencing being a minimum of eight-feet high. However, the animal housing standard only required that the fencing be sturdy enough to prevent the animals from escaping. The eight-foot rule established by USDA was considered arbitrary, and it did not have to be followed.
The indictment charged that the defendant unlawfully and needlessly mutilated a dog by setting a steel-trap in a bucket of slop and catching the dog by the tongue, and that great pain and torture were unlawfully and needlessly inflicted upon the dog. Defendant argued that a dog had been invading his property and destroying hens' nests for a long time. Witnesses testified that the dog had a bad character for prowling about through the neighborhood at night. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that defendant had a right to protect his premises against such invasions, and to adopt such means as were necessary for that purpose. There was no evidence that the slop used by defendant was such as was calculated or likely to lure dogs away from the premises where they belonged on to his premises or within his enclosures. If the dog was in the habit of committing the depredations, defendant had a right to set a steel-trap for the purpose of capturing him, and if, while committing the nightly depredations the dog was thus caught and mutilated, it was not needless torture or mutilation within the meaning of the Act, and the jury should have been so instructed. The indictment charged that the defendant unlawfully and needlessly mutilated a dog by setting a steel-trap in a bucket of slop and catching the dog by the tongue, and that great pain and torture were unlawfully and needlessly inflicted upon the dog. Defendant argued that a dog had been invading his property and destroying hens' nests for a long time. Witnesses testified that the dog had a bad character for prowling about through the neighborhood at night. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that defendant had a right to protect his premises against such invasions, and to adopt such means as were necessary for that purpose. There was no evidence that the slop used by defendant was such as was calculated or likely to lure dogs away from the premises where they belonged on to his premises or within his enclosures. If the dog was in the habit of committing the depredations, defendant had a right to set a steel-trap for the purpose of capturing him, and if, while committing the nightly depredations the dog was thus caught and mutilated, it was not needless torture or mutilation within the meaning of the Act, and the jury should have been so instructed. The court reversed defendant's conviction for cruelty to animals and granted a new trial.
A Broward County, Florida ordinance defines a dangerous dog as "any dog that . . . [h]as killed or caused the death of a domestic animal in one incident." Plaintiff Brian Hoesch's dog escaped from Hoesch's backyard and attacked and killed a neighbor's cat. Prior to this incident, the dog had never been declared "dangerous" by any governmental authority. Hoesch requested a hearing after Broward's animal control division notified Hoesch of its intent to destroy his dog. After a judgment in favor of Broward County, Hoesch contends that both county ordinances conflict with state law, section 767.11(1)(b), which defines a "dangerous dog" as any dog that "[h]as more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal . . . ." The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, concluded "that Broward County ordinance sections 4-2(k)(2) and 4-12(j)(2) are null and void insofar as they conflict with state law."
This case arises from the treatment of plaintiff's horse by the defendant-veterinarian. This appeal arises from plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred in granting a compulsory non-suit in favor of defendant finding that the Veterinary Immunity Act bars claims against veterinarians except those based upon gross negligence. This court agreed with the lower court that defendant was confronted with an emergency medical condition such as to fall under the protections of the Act. Further, this court held that the trial court committed no error in concluding that plaintiff's consent was not required before the veterinarian performed the abdominal tap because that procedure was rendered under an 'emergency situation.'


text:
There's a chart in the July 8 agenda packet of the Albany City Council that reflects a mistaken view — and may leave a wrong impression — of an important fact about Oregon property taxes. "Property Tax Lost to Compression," the chart is titled.
It refers to the amounts by which individual property tax bills are reduced or "compressed" under Measure 5, enacted by the voters in 1990. The alleged loss amounted to about $200,000 in 2010 and rose every year until hitting about $1.3 million in 2014.
These sums are not "lost" at all. They were retained by Albany property owners because if the owners had been forced to pay the money, the tax rate limits of Measure 5 would have been exceeded, and that the constitution does not allow.
The limits are on the aggregate tax rates for operations of schools and community colleges ($5 per thousand dollars of market value) and on operations for all other governments including cities, counties and special districts ($10 per thousand).
Voters imposed these limits 25 years ago because property taxes were out of control and threatening to force some people out of their homes. Since then, voters in local jurisdictions have been persuaded to approve many local-option tax levies outside the tax rates that were set by Measures 47 and 50 in 1997 and '98. Levies were piled on top of levies as though the M5 limits did not exist. But they do exist, and they protect homeowners and other property owners from increases that would make the ad valorem tax even more burdensome than it is.
The chart makes it seem as though the city was entitled to that money and somehow was deprived of it. Instead, those figures represent sums the city hoped to receive but was not entitled to collect because of the taxpayer protections that still exist.
The chart is part of a staff report justifying council action to raise the city tax on electricity from 5 percent to 7 percent. This will raise additional revenue of more than $900,000 a year. And it is another example of obfuscating terminology. The city calls this a "privilege tax." What privilege? Electric service has not been a privilege for about 100 years.
In theory, the power company pays the tax for the right to have poles and wires on public property. In truth it's a direct tax on people, a tax on the privilege of living or being in business within the city limits. (hh)