Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Woods | 2001 WL 224519 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.) | Defendant was indicted on three counts of aggravated murder, one count of attempted aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of kidnapping in an incident following a dogfight. Following a jury trial, d efendant was found guilty of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and kidnapping. The court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. | Case | ||
| State v. Wright | 393 P.3d 1192 (Or.App.,2017) | 284 Or.App. 641, 2017 WL 1245397 (2017) | Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated animal abuse in the first degree after he drowned all six cats that lived with him in a water-filled trash can. On appeal, defendant challenged the exclusion of evidence that he had an intellectual disability and that he had a character for gentleness toward animals. Defendant asserts such evidence would have shown he did not act with the requisite malicious intent that the state was was required to prove. It would have been relevant in demonstrating his mental state when committing the offenses, according to defendant. The appellate court found that the lower court did not err with regard to excluding defendant's reference to an intellectual disability. The testimony at trial describing his "intellectual disability" was more of a general reference and not relevant to his mental state. On the issue of character evidence of defendant's gentleness toward animals, the appellate assumed the lower court erred because the state conceded it was harmless error in its brief. In agreeing with the state that the error was harmless, the court found any further evidence would have been cumulative because other testimony spoke to defendant's gentle character toward animals. The matter was remanded for resentencing due to errors in sentencing. | Case | |
| State v. Ziemann | 705 N.W.2d 59 (Neb.App.,2005) | 14 Neb. App. 117 |
The petitioner-defendant challenged her criminal conviction for cruelly neglecting several horses she owned by asserting that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. However, the court of appeals side stepped the petitioners claim that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a farmstead, that she did not own or reside on, because she leased the grass on the farmstead for a dollar by invoking the “open fields” doctrine. The court held that even if such a lease might implicate the petitioners Fourth Amendment rights in some circumstances, the petitioner here was only leasing a open field, which she cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy in. |
Case | |
| State Veterinary Practice Laws | This map links to state veterinary practice codes for each state. | State map | |||
| State Wildlife Laws Handbook: Chapter 2 Overview of Wildlife Law | Ruth S. Musgrave | Musgrave, Ruth S. & Mary Anne Stein, State Wildlife Laws Handbook 6-13 (1993). |
This chapter gives an overview of the history of wildlife laws and the development of modern state wildlife laws. Moreover, it discusses the relationship between state wildlife laws and federal wildlife laws. |
Article | |
| Statement of Need for the Convention for the Protection of Animals | CITES Ad Hoc Forum for the Convention for the Protection of Animals | CITES Committee |
This paper is a quick summary of why there is a need for an international convention for the protection of animals. |
Article | |
| Statute Of Anne-imals: Should Copyright Protect Sentient Nonhuman Creators? | Dane E. Johnson | 15 Animal L. 15 (2008) |
This article explores questions of whether copyright protection can and should extend to works created by captive animals such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and elephants. Commentators have considered similar questions in the artificial intelligence context and generally rejected the notion that computers can create works sufficiently free of human involvement to merit copyright protection. As our understanding of animal intelligence increases, however, the case for reconsideration of copyright’s constitutional and statutory boundaries becomes stronger. This article examines those boundaries and offers a proposal for granting limited copyrights to animals under a theory along the lines of David Favre’s equitable self-ownership concept. |
Article | |
| STATUTES WITH FOUR LEGS TO STAND ON?: AN EXAMINATION OF "CRUELTY TO POLICE DOG" LAWS | Craig Ian Scheiner | 5 Animal L. 177 (1999) | Since 1978, forty states and one United States territory have passed laws to protect police dogs. Despite the numerous peculiarities contained in these laws, as well as the legal issues raised by them, none of the laws have been reviewed in academic literature. Although the courts have had little occasion to analyze the vast breadth of issues surrounding the police dog laws, there is much to be said about the components of the various statutes. This article examines the statutory requirements and prescribed penalties relating to police dog statutes and opens debate on the prudence and value of such laws. Whether the textual aspects of the police dog laws are worthy of praise or critique, or both, legal standards only address part of the story. The practical issues of police dog deployment must also be considered. In the final analysis, law enforcement agencies are vested with the discretion to direct deployment policy; hence, only they can truly protect the dogs from harm. | Article | |
| Stauber v. Shalala | 895 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Wis.,1995) |
Court found that milk consumers failed to prove that milk gained from rBST-treated cows contains higher levels of antibiotics, tastes different, or differs in any noticeable way from "ordinary" milk. That consumers might demand mandatory labeling was not enough to require labeling; rather, the FDA was required to ensure that products are not misbranded and consumer demand could not require the FDA to forgo this duty. |
Case | ||
| Steagald v. Eason | 797 S.E.2d 838 (2017) | 300 Ga. 717, 2017 WL 875038 (Ga., 2017) |
In this case, Gary and Lori Steagald sued the Eason family, alleging that the Easons failed to keep their dog properly restrained and were therefore liable under OCGA § 51-2-7. Lori Steagald suffered injuries after the Easons dog attacked her while she was visiting the Easons home. The Easons filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that they had no reason to know that the dog was vicious or dangerous and therefore were not liable under the statute. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed the motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the lower court’s decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the Eason family was liable under the statute because they did have reason to believe that the dog could potentially be vicious or dangerous. The Court focused on the fact that the dog had previously “growled and snapped” at the Easons while being fed. The Court held that although the dog had never bit anyone prior to Lori Steagald, it was reasonable to assume that the dog could potentially bite and injure someone given the fact that it had a history of snapping and growling. As a result, the Court reversed the Easons motion for summary judgment and determined that the question of whether or not the Easons are liable under the statute is a question for the jury. |
Case |