United States
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Com. v. Kneller |
Defendant appealed a conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals after Defendant provided a gun and instructed her boyfriend to shoot and kill their dog after the dog allegedly bit Defendant’s child. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the conviction, finding the relevant animal cruelty statute to be ambiguous, thus requiring the reversal under the rule of lenity. Concurring and dissenting opinions were filed, in which both agreed that the statute is unambiguous as to whether a dog owner may destroy his or her dog by use of a firearm when that dog has attacked another person, but disagreed as to whether sufficient evidence was offered to show that the dog in fact attacked another person. (See Supreme Court order - Com. v. Kneller, 978 A.2d 716, 2009 WL 5154265 (Pa.,2009)). |
| Com. v. Kneller |
|
| Com. v. Linhares |
|
| Com. v. Raban |
|
| Com. v. Seyler |
|
| Com. v. Trefry | The Defendant Trefry, left her two sheepdogs, Zach and Kenji, alone on the property of her condemned home. An animal control officer noticed that Kenji was limping badly and took him to a veterinarian. Both dogs were removed from the property three days later. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating statute G.L. c. 140, § 174E(f ), which protects dogs from cruel conditions and inhumane chaining or tethering. The Defendant appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable held that: (1) neither outside confinement nor confinement in general is an element of subjecting dogs to cruel conditions as prohibited by statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support finding that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions. The Appeals Court reasoned that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions in violation of the statute because by the time they were removed, the dogs were “incredibly tick-infested” and “matted,” and Kenji had contracted Lyme disease and sustained a soft shoulder injury to his leg. An animal control officer also testified that the defendant's home was cluttered on the inside and overgrown on the outside. The yard also contained items that posed a danger to the animals. There was also sufficient evidence to infer that, while the dogs could move in and out of the condemned house, the dogs were confined to the house and fenced-in yard. The area to which the dogs were confined presented with every factor listed in § 174E(f)(1) as constituting “filthy and dirty” conditions. Also, "Zach's and Kenji's emotional health was further compromised by being left alone virtually all day every day" according to the court. Therefore the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed. |
| Com. v. Zalesky |
In this Massachusetts case, the defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, in violation of G.L. c. 272, § 77. On appeal, the defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt; specifically, that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions exceeded what was necessary and appropriate to train the dog. A witness in this case saw defendant beat his dog with a plastic "whiffle" bat on the head about 10 times. The defendant told the officer who arrived on the scene that he had used the bat on previous occasions, and did so to “put the fear of God in [the] dog.” At trial, a veterinarian testified that the dog suffered no trauma from the bat, but probably experienced pain if struck repeatedly in that manner. The court found that defendant's behavior fell under the ambit of the statutes because his actions were cruel, regardless of whether defendant viewed them as such. Judgment affirmed. |
| Comm'n on Hum. Rts. & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions | The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Wendy and Rudy Pizzoferrato, holding that they failed to establish their housing discrimination claim under General Statutes § 46a-64c. The case arose when the defendants, The Mansions, LLC, initially approved the Pizzoferratos’ request for an accommodation to keep two emotional support dogs—despite a "no pets" policy—but later rescinded approval for the second dog, demanding additional documentation to justify its necessity. The trial court found that the defendants violated fair housing laws by constructively denying the accommodation request, ruling that Wendy had a mental disability under § 46a-51(20) either because she had a "record of" generalized anxiety disorder or was "regarded as" disabled by the defendants, and that two dogs were necessary for her equal enjoyment of the dwelling. On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed that Wendy qualified as disabled under the "record of" prong based on her therapist’s diagnosis, even if imperfectly documented, but rejected the trial court’s conclusion that two dogs were "necessary" under the statute. Relying on federal precedent, particularly Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Assn., the court held that "necessary" means indispensable, not merely preferable, and the plaintiffs failed to show that both dogs were essential rather than simply beneficial. Because the defendants offered to allow one dog—an alternative that would have satisfied Wendy’s needs—the court found no violation of fair housing laws and reversed the judgment. The decision clarifies that while housing providers must reasonably accommodate disabilities, plaintiffs must demonstrate that requested accommodations are truly essential, not just advantageous, to secure legal protection. |
| Commercial Dog Breeders and Puppy Mills | |
| Committee for Humane Legislation v. Richardson |
|