IN THE GALLIPOLIS MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIA COUNTY, OHIO. STATE OF OHIO, CASE No. 14 CRB 157 A-L PLAINTIFF S POST-TRIAL BRIEF

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE GALLIPOLIS MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIA COUNTY, OHIO. STATE OF OHIO, CASE No. 14 CRB 157 A-L PLAINTIFF S POST-TRIAL BRIEF"

Transcription

1 IN THE GALLIPOLIS MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, CASE No. 14 CRB 157 A-L PLAINTIFF, -VS- JASON HARRIS, DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Now comes the State of Ohio, by and through the undersigned attorney, and offers the following memorandum of facts and law following the trial of this matter held October 28, 2014, pursuant to the Court s orders on the same date. MEMORANDUM The Defendant was charged with counts A-L. All of the charges are substantially similar in nature, alleging violations of O.R.C (C)(1), varying only in the dates and each charge representing a different animal. O.R.C (C)(1) states in pertinent part: (C) No person who confines or who is the custodian or caretaker of a companion animal shall negligently do any of the following: (1) Commit any act by which unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, permitted, or allowed to continue, when there is a reasonable remedy or relief, against the companion animal The State has proven each and every element of the crimes alleged through testimony and exhibits provided at the trial hearing by the officers, the expert witnesses, and the prior recorded statements of the Defendant. A. Venue Is Correct. The State has proven venue beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the officers and the prior recorded statements of the Defendant make clear that the actions of the Defendant occurred in Gallia County as alleged in charges A-L. The Court should find that venue is correct. B. The Defendant Is the Custodian or Caretaker at the Times Alleged. The State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was the custodian or caretaker at the times alleged. The admissions contained in the Defendant s recorded statements and the euthanasia records of the animal shelter he provided to the officers make clear that he was employed by the Gallia County Animal Shelter as Assistant Dog Warden and that all of the acts alleged in charges A-L occurred during the time period of that employment. The

2 terms custodian or caretaker are not defined in O.R.C The Court should apply the common definitions as one entrusted to guard or keep property and one that gives physical or emotional care, respectively. 1 The Court should find that the State has satisfied this portion of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. C. The Animals Involved In These Cases Are Companion Animals. The statute defines companion animals in pertinent part as any dog regardless of where it is kept. The admissions contained in the Defendant s recorded statements and the euthanasia records of the animal shelter he provided to the officers make clear that all of the animals involved in the acts of the Defendant were dogs. The Court should find that the State has satisfied this portion of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. D. The Defendant Committed Acts By Which Pain or Suffering Was Caused, Permitted, Or Allowed To Continue. The State has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed acts by which pain or suffering was caused, permitted, or allowed to continue to the animals in these cases. The Defendant s own recorded statements and the euthanasia records of the animal shelter he provided to the officers contain unambiguous admissions that he committed certain acts as alleged in charges A-L. Specifically, the Defendant confessed that he injected a solution of sodium pentobarbital into the animals in these cases. He admitted that he did this by injecting the solution into the meaty part of the hip or shoulder. 2 Intramuscular (into the muscle) or subcutaneous (under the skin) injections of sodium pentobarbital are specifically listed as unacceptable practices by the American Veterinary Medical Association and also the American Humane Association because of the high likelihood of pain at the site of the injection. 3 In the State s case in chief, Dr. Hendrickson testified as to the chemical nature of the solution injected into the dogs by the Defendant. He testified emphatically that the intramuscular and subcutaneous injection of sodium pentobarbital were unacceptable practices in his profession of veterinary medicine. He stated that the solution at issue was acidic and that it was a sodium based solution. He stated it would be painful to inject an animal (in the method used by the Defendant) with this solution because of its chemical composition. These statements mirror the conclusions of the American Veterinary Medical Association in their published Euthanasia Guidelines, 2013 Edition which was read into the record by Dr. Hendrickson. They are also the same as the conclusions and guidelines published by the American Humane Association in their 2005 and 2010 Euthanasia Guidelines which were also read into the record. Dr. Hendrickson testified that these were not new conclusions and that these guidelines had been known in his profession for a substantial length of time. The Court must rely on circumstantial evidence in this case because it is the nature of an animal not to be able to testify whether or not it is feeling pain. In short, the Court should weigh the credibility of the witnesses and square their testimony with that of the learned treatises recited into the record. In order to confuse this issue, the Defendant called their own expert 1 Webster s Unabridged Online Dictionary 2 Defendant s Recorded Statement to Officers Werry and Grau 3 AVMA Euthanasia Guidelines, 2013 Edition, and AHA Euthanasia Manuals, 2005 and 2010 Editions, as read into the record by Dr. Hendrickson.

3 witness, Dr. Dahse, who is also a licensed veterinarian. Dr. Dahse testified that she performed both subcutaneous and intramuscular injections of sodium pentobarbital as part of her euthanasia practices. Dr. Dahse s testimony illustrated that she was completely unaware of both the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines and the American Humane Association guidelines described above. She did not know of the conclusions of the AVMA concerning the high probability of pain associated with the subcutaneous and intramuscular injection of sodium pentobarbital. She did not know that both the AVMA and AHA had described these methods of injection as unacceptable practices. She did, however, testify that, in the past, she had observed animals react as if they were feeling pain when she administered sodium pentobarbital in the unapproved manner. 4 Although the Defendant himself is not required to testify, he did not produce any evidence to contradict the conclusions of the American Veterinary Medical Association or American Humane Association which had been shared with him prior to the trial in discovery. His expert was completely unaware of the guidelines promulgated by these respected authorities in the field of veterinary medicine. The Court should find that Dr. Hendrickson s testimony was much more credible than that of Dr. Dahse and that Dr. Hendrickson s testimony and the learned treatises in this field clearly point to the finding that the Defendant s actions did cause pain to the animals in these cases. E. The Pain Suffered by the Animals in These Cases Was Unnecessary and Unjustifiable Because Reasonable Remedy or Relief Exists In Regard to the Acts of the Defendant. The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the pain suffered by the animals in this case was avoidable. Dr. Hendrickson described the best practices for the use of the sodium pentobarbital solution. He stated that the most preferred method of injection is intravenous (into a vein), followed by intraperitoneal (into the upper abdomen), followed only then by intracardial (into the heart) injection on a sedated or unconscious animal. These are the same procedures codified by law in Ohio R.C Dr. Hendrickson s testimony greatly clarified these procedures for the Court because he was able to describe all of these procedures in terms of the likelihood of pain associated with each procedure. Dr. Dahse had no knowledge of O.R.C and testified that she would never perform an intraperitoneal injection of sodium pentobarbital which further casts a substantial cloud on her credibility. Dr. Hendrickson testified that the most preferable method of injection is into a vein because it does not have the same type of nerves as a muscle. He further testified that the same was true of the intraperitoneal injection. He then described the intracardial injection as appropriate only after sedation for the same reason: the high likelihood of pain such an injection would cause to a conscious animal. In summary, Dr. Hendrickson s testimony directly correlates with the order of preference codified in O.R.C As such, the Court should consider him to be a much more credible witness than Dr. Dahse. 4 Dr. Dahse testified that some animals acted like you cut their arm off and some animals made no discernible response to the injection. 5 O.R.C states The agent or employee of an animal shelter when using a lethal solution to perform euthanasia on an animal shall use such solution in accordance with the following methods and in the following order of preference:

4 The Defendant s recorded statement to the investigating officers makes it clear that he did NOT attempt either an intravenous injection or intraperitoneal injection. Furthermore, the Defendant s statements make clear that he did NOT follow the manufacturer s instructions in administering the sodium pentobarbital. Dr. Dahse testified that the manufacturer s instructions on the label of the solution bottle were unambiguous and that there were no manufacturer s instructions whatsoever anywhere for an intramuscular injection. Defendant s statements also make clear that he failed to give the recommended dosage to the animals in these cases. In his statement, Defendant says that, for each of the dogs at issue, he did inject the majority of the recommended dosage of the solution into the muscles of the dogs rather than into the heart muscle saving only about one ml for the killing dose (injection into the heart). Dr. Hendrickson, Dr. Dahse and the manufacturer s instructions all concur in that the correct killing dose was one ml per ten pounds of animal. Because the Defendant did not avail himself of the preferred method of injection, and because the Defendant completely disregarded the instructions promulgated by the solution manufacturer, and because Defendant split the dosage recommended only for the intracardial injection into two separate injections (one for sedating and one for killing) the Court should find that the pain suffered by these animals was unnecessary and unjustifiable because reasonable remedy or relief existed in the form of more preferred methods of injection. F. The Defendant Acted With (at least) the Culpable Mental State Which Is Negligence. Ohio defines negligence in the following manner: A person acts negligently when, because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that his conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. A person is negligent with respect to circumstances when, because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that such circumstances may exist. 6 In the case at bar, the State has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant acted negligently in performing the alleged acts by which he caused unnecessary and unjustifiable pain to the animals in these cases when reasonable remedy or relief existed. The Court has more than enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant failed to perceive or avoid a risk that his conduct could result in pain to the animals because 1) he didn t follow the plain language on the solution bottle, or 2) give the recommended dose as listed on the bottle, or 3) even attempt to follow the Revised Code s order of preference for the methods of injection. All of these facts were contained in Defendant s own recorded statement and the testimony of his own expert witness. Even someone with no training knows that you should always follow the instructions for administering a controlled substance. This was a substantial lapse of due care. If there are certain codified rules pertaining specifically to the correct procedure for doing a person s job, and a person fails to be aware of those rules, that is a substantial lapse of due care. If a person knows and disregards the codified procedure for performing their job, that is a substantial lapse of due care. If there are multiple respected nationwide organizations of professionals and policymakers in the field in which a person works that issue certain guidelines for best practices in that field, and a person either fails to make themselves aware of or fails to follow those 6 O.R.C (D)

5 guidelines then that is a substantial lapse of due care. The Court should conclude that the Defendant acted negligently because of a substantial lapse of due care he failed to perceive or avoid the risk that the animals may suffer pain as a result of his conduct. G. The Defendant Did Not Prove that the Acts Alleged Were Performed Within the Scope of His Employment. The Court specifically instructed the attorneys for each party herein to address the question of whether the Defendant was acting in the scope of his employment in regard to the acts alleged. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted by the Court that the Defendant did not offer any affirmative defenses in this case. He elected not to testify and arguments of counsel are not to be taken as facts. No evidence of the scope of his employment is in the record other than the Defendant s recorded statements that he was employed as the Assistant County Dog Warden and that he believed that he had authority to perform euthanasia on the animals in question. There is no evidence concerning the training, if any, received by the Defendant during the period of his employment. There is no evidence concerning whether intramuscular or subcutaneous injection was within the scope of his employment. Because it is axiomatic that the burden of production and persuasion is on the Defendant, the Court should find that he has not met that burden in regards to any affirmative defenses. 7 Besides the basic rule of law as stated above, the I was just following orders argument is NOT a defense recognized in Ohio jurisprudence. The Defendant never put forward ANY defense except the testimony of Dr. Dahse who is utterly incapable of proving the Defendant s available affirmative defenses which would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused 8. The only other available defenses are those codified within the statute itself. These include: (1) A companion animal used in scientific research conducted by an institution in accordance with the federal animal welfare act and related regulations; (2) The lawful practice of veterinary medicine by a person who has been issued a license, temporary permit, or registration certificate to do so under Chapter 4741 of the Revised Code; (3) Dogs being used or intended for use for hunting or field trial purposes, provided that the dogs are being treated in accordance with usual and commonly accepted practices for the care of hunting dogs; (4) The use of common training devices, if the companion animal is being treated in accordance with usual and commonly accepted practices for the training of animals; (5) The administering of medicine to a companion animal that was properly prescribed by a person who has been issued a license, temporary permit, or registration certificate under Chapter 4741 of the Revised Code. 9 The Court should find that none of these defenses applies in this case. The Court will find that the provisions contained in Chapter 4741 are not applicable here. 10 There is no evidence that the Defendant ever qualified as holding a license, temporary permit or registration certificate. Furthermore, the Defendant never administered medicine to a companion animal. The term is 7 O.R.C (A) 8 O.R.C (C) 9 O.R.C (F) 10 O.R.C deals with licenses, with temporary permits and with registration certificates

6 not defined in O.R.C Most common definitions of the word medicine describe it as a substance taken or administered with beneficial intent or objective thereby distinguishing it from a poison. Dr. Hendrickson testified that there is no known antidote to sodium pentobarbital and that its sole function is for the euthanasia of animals. It does not treat any disease. It does not cure any infirmity. It should not be considered a medicine simply because it is a controlled substance. Furthermore, Defendant never introduced any evidence that the solution he administered to the animals in these cases was prescribed as outlined in O.R.C (F)(5). The term prescribe is not defined in the statute but most common definitions attribute the same type of beneficial intent associated with the word medicine. Lastly, the term administering is not defined in the statute. The Court should find that the Defendant never administered medicine because, by his own admission, he did not follow the manufacturer s instructions on the label of the package of sodium pentobarbital. To find that the statute meant to except acts of improperly administering medicine would result in an absurdity. As outlined above, these are the Defendant s burdens, rather than the State s burdens of proof and production and there is no evidence before the Court sufficient to overcome the Defendant s burdens in this regard. H. The Case of State ex rel. Phelps v. Columbiana County Commissioners Is Not Applicable to the Facts of the Case At Bar. In his closing argument, Defendant s counsel cited the case of State ex rel. Phelps v. Columbiana County Commissioners 125 Ohio App.3d 414 (Seventh App. Dist. 1998). That case dealt exclusively with whether or not the Columbiana County Animal Shelter could use a carbon monoxide chamber to euthanize dogs. The Phelps court narrowly tailored its opinion to the restrictions found in O.R.C The statute at issue before this Court, O.R.C , was not discussed at all. Furthermore, O.R.C. 955 contains only administrative directives aimed at the Board of the County Commission regarding their duties with respect to the functioning of the county animal shelter. O.R.C is a criminal statute. The case cited by Defendant is simply not applicable. I. Conclusion. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court should find the Defendant guilty. Respectfully Submitted, Adam R. Salisbury, Esq. OHIO nd Avenue Gallipolis, OH Gallipolis City Solicitor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY [Cite as State ex rel. Ohio Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Hocking Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2014-Ohio-3348.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY

More information

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 1, 1, PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. Session of INTRODUCED BY DINNIMAN, ALLOWAY, ARGALL, BAKER, BLAKE, BOSCOLA, BREWSTER, EICHELBERGER, ERICKSON,

More information

Article 3. Animal Welfare Act. 19A-20. Title of Article. This Article may be cited as the Animal Welfare Act. (1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1217, s. 1.

Article 3. Animal Welfare Act. 19A-20. Title of Article. This Article may be cited as the Animal Welfare Act. (1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1217, s. 1. Article 3. Animal Welfare Act. 19A-20. Title of Article. This Article may be cited as the Animal Welfare Act. (1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1217, s. 1.) 19A-21. Purposes. The purposes of this Article are (i) to

More information

STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine

STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No. 09-3031 State of New Maine Instruction Number Instruction Description 1. Preliminary Instructions 2. Functions of

More information

States Animal Cruelty Statutes

States Animal Cruelty Statutes University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States Animal Cruelty Statutes State of South Dakota www.nationalaglawcenter.org States Animal Cruelty Statutes STATE

More information

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS SUBCHAPTER A. TREATMENT OF ANIMALS Section 821.001. Definition. In this subchapter, "animal"

More information

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION... Page 1 of 13

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION... Page 1 of 13 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION... Page 1 of 13 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS SUBCHAPTER

More information

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004.

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 05 469654 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs JAMES KNIGHT JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant, John P. O Donnell, J.: The defendant has

More information

Alaska Animal Cruelty Laws

Alaska Animal Cruelty Laws Introduction Alaska Animal Cruelty Laws Sarah Reese 1 Alaska s criminal animal protection laws can be found in Title 11 (Criminal Law) and Title 3 (Agriculture, Animals, and Food). Title 11 contains the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12 CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12 CV [Cite as Davison v. Parker, 2014-Ohio-3277.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO DAVID DAVISON, et al., : O P I N I O N Plaintiffs-Appellants, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2013-L-098

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION NORMAN TIMBERLAKE Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 1:06-cv-1859-RLY-WTL ED BUSS, Defendants. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S

More information

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2010 COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3085

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2010 COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3085 MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2010 By: Senator(s) Dearing To: Judiciary, Division B COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

More information

COMPANION ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

COMPANION ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT c t COMPANION ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information

More information

STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 1st Session of the 54th Legislature (2013) AS INTRODUCED

STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 1st Session of the 54th Legislature (2013) AS INTRODUCED STATE OF OKLAHOMA 1st Session of the th Legislature () SENATE BILL AS INTRODUCED By: Sykes An Act relating to professions and occupations; creating the Massage Therapy Practice Act; providing short title;

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO [Cite as State v. Fisher, 2014-Ohio-436.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, v. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 6-13-03 DANIEL LEWIS FISHER, O P I N I O

More information

POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE 1 (BATH SALTS) 2 (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.3a)

POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE 1 (BATH SALTS) 2 (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.3a) Count POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE 1 2 of the indictment charges the defendant as follows: (Read Indictment) Approved 3/9/15 The pertinent part of the statute

More information

The Animal Protection Act, 2018

The Animal Protection Act, 2018 1 ANIMAL PROTECTION, 2018 c A-21.2 The Animal Protection Act, 2018 being Chapter A-21.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2018 (effective September 17, 2018). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT, B I L L. No. 110 An Act respecting the Protection of Animals and making consequential amendments to certain Acts

ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT, B I L L. No. 110 An Act respecting the Protection of Animals and making consequential amendments to certain Acts 1 B I L L No. 110 An Act respecting the Protection of Animals and making consequential amendments to certain Acts PART 1 Preliminary Matters 1 Short title 2 Definitions and Interpretation for Parts 2,

More information

CITY OF CLEVELAND KATHY MORIARTY

CITY OF CLEVELAND KATHY MORIARTY [Cite as State v. Moriarty, 2008-Ohio-2366.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89795 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KATHY MORIARTY

More information

STATE OF OHIO STANLEY DEJARNETTE

STATE OF OHIO STANLEY DEJARNETTE [Cite as State v. DeJarnette, 2011-Ohio-5672.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96553 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. STANLEY DEJARNETTE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. White, 2013-Ohio-5423.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99375 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GEORGE WHITE

More information

The Animal Welfare Act

The Animal Welfare Act The Animal Welfare Act 1988:534 Consolidated text (as last amended by SFS 2007:362 of 31 May 2007) Unofficial translation Scope of the Act Section 1 This Act applies to the care and treatment of domestic

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Holloway v. State, 2014-Ohio-2971.] [Please see original opinion at 2014-Ohio-1951.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100586

More information

The State s brief in response to the Cafaro defendants motion to enlarge time, previously filed under seal, shall be unsealed. The Cafaro defendants

The State s brief in response to the Cafaro defendants motion to enlarge time, previously filed under seal, shall be unsealed. The Cafaro defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO 2010 CR 800 Plaintiff December 21, 2010 Vs. DECISION AND ORDER ANTHONY M. CAFARO, JR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A) JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR..

More information

Case: 1:17-cv DCN Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:17-cv DCN Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:17-cv-00410-DCN Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN MANCINI, and NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE

More information

ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT Wholly Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23613, Feb. 3, 2012 Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24455, Mar. 23, 2013 Presidential Decree No. 25160, Feb.

More information

Policies and Procedures Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association

Policies and Procedures Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association I. Duties of Officers Policies and Procedures Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association Section 1. The president shall: (a) preside at all meetings of the members, Executive Board, and Advisory Committee;

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY [Cite as State v. Belville, 2010-Ohio-2971.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 09CA10 : vs. : Released: June 24,

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. ClassAction.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. ClassAction. Filing # 62197581 E-Filed 09/29/2017 01:53:34 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION ANDERSON MORENO, a minor, by and through his

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 553 U. S. (2008) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07 5439 RALPH BAZE AND THOMAS C. BOWLING, PETI- TIONERS v. JOHN D. REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. ON WRIT

More information

BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL FROM THE ALASKA BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS

BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL FROM THE ALASKA BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL FROM THE ALASKA BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS In the Matter of DAN A KIN G OAHNo. 08-0103-VET Agency Case No. 3150-08-002 DECISION I. Introduction

More information

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC03-1242 IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ) ) THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, ) ) Incapacitated. ) ) ) ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY ) SCHINDLER, ) ) Petition from the Second District

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : RONALD FOSTER : OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : RONALD FOSTER : OPINION [Cite as Ebbets Partners, Ltd. v. Foster, 2002-Ohio-6324.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80728 EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 5/3/2010 :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 5/3/2010 : [Cite as State v. Adams, 2010-Ohio-1942.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-09-018 : O P I N I O N - vs -

More information

874 October 9, 2013 No. 380 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,

874 October 9, 2013 No. 380 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, 874 October 9, 2013 No. 380 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE BETH EVILSIZER, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court C092367CR;

More information

Case 5:10-cv F Document 93 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 5:10-cv F Document 93 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 5:10-cv-00141-F Document 93 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JAMES PAVATT, ) Plaintiff, ) and ) ) JEFFREY D. MATTHEWS, and ) JOHN

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Page, 2011-Ohio-83.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94369 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIE PAGE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

MEDICAL INNOVATION BILL

MEDICAL INNOVATION BILL Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 334 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDICAL INNOVATION BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 75 Bill)) (Bill and prior notice of its introduction published

More information

STATE OF OHIO ROBERT HENDERSON

STATE OF OHIO ROBERT HENDERSON [Cite as State v. Henderson, 2008-Ohio-1631.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89377 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBERT HENDERSON

More information

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [Cite as State v. Simmons, 2008-Ohio-3337.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 07 JE 22 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) - VS - ) OPINION ) MICHAEL

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Belle, 2012-Ohio-3808.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97652 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES BELLE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 2011 CHAPTER 16 An Act to make provision about animal welfare. [29th March 2011] BE IT ENACTED by being passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and assented

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Friedman v. McClelland, 2012-Ohio-1538.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97036 ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DAN

More information

MODEL ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS

MODEL ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS MODEL ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS I. DEFINITIONS II. III. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS DEFENSES IV. PRE-CONVICTION PROVISIONS V. POST-CONVICTION PROVISIONS VI. OTHER PROVISIONS I. DEFINITIONS A. ANIMAL B. GUARDIAN

More information

CRUELTY PREVENTION AND WELFARE OF ANIMAL ACT, B.E (2014)

CRUELTY PREVENTION AND WELFARE OF ANIMAL ACT, B.E (2014) CRUELTY PREVENTION AND WELFARE OF ANIMAL ACT, B.E. 2557 (2014) Department of livestock Development Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (Unofficial Translation) CRUELTY PREVENTION AND WELFARE OF ANIMAL

More information

Animal Welfare Act 1992

Animal Welfare Act 1992 Australian Capital Territory A1992-45 Republication No 17 Effective: 28 March 2009 Republication date: 28 March 2009 Last amendment made by A2008-37 (republication for commenced expiry) Not all amendments

More information

Case 8:17-cv JVS-KES Document 1 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1

Case 8:17-cv JVS-KES Document 1 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1 Case :-cv-0-jvs-kes Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 SANDRA R. BROWN Acting United States Attorney LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Chief, Criminal Division STEVEN R. WELK Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section JONATHAN

More information

Written Materials for Supreme Court Review 8 th Amendment Instructor: Joel Oster

Written Materials for Supreme Court Review 8 th Amendment Instructor: Joel Oster Written Materials for Supreme Court Review 8 th Amendment Instructor: Joel Oster I. Hall v. Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986 (2014) a. Facts: After the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

More information

TRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive

TRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive TRIAL OBJECTIONS Albert E. Durkin, Esq. Miroballi Durkin & Rudin LLC Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive Will the answer hurt your case? Protecting the record

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Goldsmith, 2008-Ohio-5990.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90617 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ANTONIO GOLDSMITH

More information

FINAL ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART TRIAL COURT S DISMISSAL OF RED LIGHT CAMERA CITATIONS

FINAL ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART TRIAL COURT S DISMISSAL OF RED LIGHT CAMERA CITATIONS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, APPELLATE CASE NO.: 2012-CV-89-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-TR-29314-A-O 2012-TR-30442-A-O

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant:

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant: [Cite as State v. Jester, 2004-Ohio-3611.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83520 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION WILLIE LEE

More information

IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO.: 2012-0216 Plaintiff/Appellant ON APPEAL FROM THE vs.. NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMIT COUNTY DAVID WILLAN COURT OF APPEALS Defendants/Appellee

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-5585.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2012-P-0032 JUSTIN

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Wyland, 2011-Ohio-455.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94463 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIAM WYLAND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Thinking Evidentially

Thinking Evidentially Thinking Evidentially Writing & Arguing Powerful Motions October 17, 2013 2013 www.rossdalecle.com Presentation of Proof Plaintiff (or prosecutor) presents case-in-chief, then rests; When witnesses are

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF ALASKA

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF ALASKA ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF ALASKA 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS 7. SEIZURE

More information

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 15 Case 1:17-cv-01577 Document 1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION, 1040 Spring Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 v.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :... O P I N I O N...

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :... O P I N I O N... [Cite as State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666.] STATE OF OHIO : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 02CA116 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 02CR104 BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Gant, 2006-Ohio-1469.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. 04 MA 252 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ) ) VS. ) OPINION ) CHARLES GANT

More information

Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the Management Committee

Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the Management Committee Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the Management Committee MGT-P0008-6 7 SEPTEMBER 2018 CONTENTS 1 ESTABLISHMENT 3 2 MANDATE 3 3 COMPOSITION 4 4 MEETINGS 4 5 MINUTES OF MEETINGS 4 6 URGENT DECISIONS

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY. The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY. The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N [Cite as State v. Stanovich, 173 Ohio App.3d 304, 2007-Ohio-4234.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 6-06-10 APPELLEE, v. O P I N I O N STANOVICH, APPELLANT.

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Civil Procedure And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Copyco, Inc. (Copyco), a

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF GEORGIA

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF GEORGIA ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF GEORGIA 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS 7. SEIZURE

More information

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION. vs. R.A.A.C. Order No Referee Decision No U Employer/Appellant

STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION. vs. R.A.A.C. Order No Referee Decision No U Employer/Appellant In the matter of: Claimant/Appellee STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION vs. R.A.A.C. Order No. 13-09253 Referee Decision No. 0008781901-02U Employer/Appellant ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT

More information

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012)

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012) of 27 2/26/2012 10:34 AM Published on Federal Evidence Review (http://federalevidence.com) Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012) The Federal Rules of Evidence Page provides the current version of the Federal

More information

CHAPTER 336. C.56:8-92 Short title. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Pet Purchase Protection Act."

CHAPTER 336. C.56:8-92 Short title. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Pet Purchase Protection Act. CHAPTER 336 AN ACT concerning the sale of cats and dogs, supplementing P.L.1960, c.39 (C.56:8-1 et seq.) and amending P.L.1941, c. 151. BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of

More information

TOWN OF PARADISE ORDINANCE NO. 484

TOWN OF PARADISE ORDINANCE NO. 484 TOWN OF PARADISE ORDINANCE NO. 484 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 6.12.60 OF THE PARADISE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 6.13 TO THE PARADISE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS,

More information

LEGAL GUIDE TO DO NOT RESUSCITATE (DNR) ORDERS. Prepared by Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee April 2013

LEGAL GUIDE TO DO NOT RESUSCITATE (DNR) ORDERS. Prepared by Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee April 2013 LEGAL GUIDE TO DO NOT RESUSCITATE (DNR) ORDERS Prepared by Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee April 2013 Generally, Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders may be instituted without any involvement of the

More information

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) 2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that

More information

1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal. accusation or indictment, no defense attorney shall be allowed to represent

1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal. accusation or indictment, no defense attorney shall be allowed to represent Form TJ-110, INSTRUCTION FOR CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS (Sections 6, 7, and 16, Rule 3, of the JSR) Recommendation: 1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal accusation or

More information

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/09/ :28 PM INDEX NO /2019E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2019

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/09/ :28 PM INDEX NO /2019E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ELAINE GREENBERG, as Executor of the Estate of GERALD GREENBERG, Deceased Index No. Plaintiff, -against- MONTEFIORE NEW ROCHELLE HOSPITAL, DIEGO ESCOBAR,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 19, 2002 v No. 224027 Oakland Circuit Court DANIEL ALAN HOPKINS, LC No. 98-159567-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF PUERTO RICO

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF PUERTO RICO ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF PUERTO RICO 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS 7. SEIZURE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Ismail, 2014-Ohio-1080.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100179 CITY OF CLEVELAND vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE THERESA

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA NORMAN ROBINSON v. Appellant No. 2064 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811 Case: 1:13-cv-01851 Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BASSIL ABDELAL, Plaintiff, v. No. 13 C 1851 CITY

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF LOUISIANA

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF LOUISIANA ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF LOUISIANA 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS 7. SEIZURE

More information

NARCOTICS ACT B.E (1979) * BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign.

NARCOTICS ACT B.E (1979) * BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign. NARCOTICS ACT B.E. 2522 (1979) * BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Bd. of Twp. Trustees Sharon Twp. v. Zehringer, 2011-Ohio-6885.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE BOARD OF TOWNSHIP JUDGES TRUSTEES SHARON TOWNSHIP Hon. William

More information

House of Delegates Manual January, 2017 Table of Contents

House of Delegates Manual January, 2017 Table of Contents House of Delegates Manual January, 2017 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 House of Delegates... 2 Authority and responsibility... 2 Certification of delegates and alternate delegates... 2 Composition...

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Jarvis, 2015-Ohio-4219.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 14CA010667 v. KRISTOPHER L. JARVIS Appellant

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 2008-Ohio-1865.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL : INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff-Appellee/ : C.A. CASE NO. 07-CA-28 Cross

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: 451193/2015 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X Date Purchased: July 17, 2013 FEROZ ALAM, Plaintiff

More information

SEEKING ADMISSION OF POLICE REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN: A DUAL LEVEL HEARSAY CHALLENGE

SEEKING ADMISSION OF POLICE REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN: A DUAL LEVEL HEARSAY CHALLENGE SEEKING ADMISSION OF POLICE REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN: A DUAL LEVEL HEARSAY CHALLENGE By: Nathan S. Scherbarth, Jacobs and Diemer, P.C. 1 In civil litigation, police reports, and

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Abrams, 2012-Ohio-3957.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97814 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. IAN J.

More information

Reproduced by Sabinet Online in terms of Government Printer s Copyright Authority No dated 02 February 1998 STAATSKOERANT, 22 JULIE 2011

Reproduced by Sabinet Online in terms of Government Printer s Copyright Authority No dated 02 February 1998 STAATSKOERANT, 22 JULIE 2011 STAATSKOERANT, 22 JULIE 2011 No.34463 17 No. R. 587 22 July 2011 MEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES ACT, 1965 (ACT NO. 101 OF 1965) GENERAL REGULATIONS MADE IN TERMS OF THE MEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES

More information

Case 5:06-cr TBR-JDM Document 202 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 29

Case 5:06-cr TBR-JDM Document 202 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 29 Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR-JDM Document 202 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED

More information

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v.brister, 2005-Ohio-2061.] COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DARRELL BRISTER Defendant-Appellant Guernsey County, App.

More information

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF MICHIGAN

ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF MICHIGAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS OF MICHIGAN 1. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 2. PENALTIES 3. EXEMPTIONS 4. COUNSELING / EVALUATIONS 5. PROTECTIVE ORDERS 6. RESTITUTION / REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS / BONDING & LIENS 7. SEIZURE

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMES CARPENTER

STATE OF OHIO JAMES CARPENTER [Cite as State v. Carpenter, 2009-Ohio-3593.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91769 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES CARPENTER

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: May 11, 2009 Docket No. 27,938 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, LAMONT PICKETT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL

More information

NARCOTICS ACT B.E (1979)* BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign.

NARCOTICS ACT B.E (1979)* BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign. NARCOTICS ACT B.E. 2522 (1979)* ------- BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 22nd day of April B.E. 2522; Being the 57th year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased

More information

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 May Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award filed 18 January

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 May Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award filed 18 January NO. COA02-470 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 May 2003 PHIL S. TAYLOR, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, Employer, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, Carrier, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff

More information

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 12, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 12, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 12, 2015 - Case No. 2015-1422 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. : CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, : : Relator, : Case No. 2015-1422 : v. : Original

More information

STATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER

STATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER [Cite as State v. Friedlander, 2008-Ohio-2812.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 553 U. S. (2008) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07 5439 RALPH BAZE AND THOMAS C. BOWLING, PETI- TIONERS v. JOHN D. REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. ON WRIT

More information