Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In Their Own Right – Calling for Parity in Law for Animal Victims of Crimes | Justice (Retd.) K.S.P. Radhakrishnan (Foreward) | India Animal Crime Victim Report | This report is an attempt at documentation and analysis of crimes against animals during the period 10 2010-20 across three main categories: Companion, Working and Street Animals. The chapters in the report are structured in three parts: Part I that links the current legal framework with companion and working animals. Part II that discusses the exclusion of street animals from any protection and licensing brutal violence against them. The discussion on Assault also covers a range of offences, physical abuse, harm, assault, grievous hurt, sexual assault and murder of animals – confirming a widespread culture of violence against animals in India. Part III looks at the conclusion, recommendations emerging from this report and the annexure documenting the cases. | Article | |
| Incidente de apelación en autos G. B., R. s/inf. ley 14346 | Causa Nº 17001-06-00/13 | This is an appeal of a decision in first instance where the lower court gave the custody of 68 dogs to the Center for Prevention of Animal Cruelty. The 68 dogs were found in extremely poor conditions, sick, malnourished, dehydrated under the custody of the Defendant. Various dogs had dermatitis, conjunctivitis, otitis, sparse hair and boils, lacerations, pyoderma and ulcers. The officers that executed the search also found the decomposing body of a dead dog inside the premises. The lower court determined the defendant had mental disabilities, which did not allow her to comprehend the scope of her acts, for which she was not found guilty of animal cruelty. However, the court determined that she was not suited to care for the dogs. The Defendant appealed the decision arguing that the authorities were not entitled to seize the animals. | Case | ||
| Intentional Cruelty to Zoo Bears (China) | Song Wei | Animal Legal and Historical Web Center |
A short case study of what happened when an individual harmed several bears at a public zoo in China. |
Article | |
| Introduction to the Offences of Cruelty to Domestic and Captive Animals | Alan T Bates | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
Introduction to the offences of cruelty to domestic and captive animals in England and Wales. These offences are contained in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960. Similar legislation applies in Scotland. |
Article | |
| IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc. | 799 F.2d 934 (1986) |
Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act. |
Case | ||
| Isted v. CPS | (1998) 162 J.P. 513 | [1998] Crim. L.R. 194; [1998] C.O.D. 86; (1998) 162 J.P.N. 663; The Times, December 11, 1997 |
The appellant was a keeper of livestock who had shot and injured a neighbor's dog that had strayed into the appellant's pig pen. He had been convicted of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the dog contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a) (second limb). Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that the local justices were entitled to find as a matter of fact that it had not been reasonably necessary to shoot the dog. |
Case | |
| Jenkins v. State | 262 P.3d 552 (Wyo.,2011) | 2011 WL 4825636 (Wyo.); 2011 WY 141 |
Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor animal cruelty. Defendant appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to a reversal, because he failed to demonstrate that his counsel failed to render reasonably competent assistance that prejudiced him to such an extent that he was deprived of a fair trial. The Court held that it was not ineffective assistance to 1) fail to object to testimony regarding defendant's arrest and incarceration, and 2) fail to object to defendant's brother testifying while wearing a striped prison suit. |
Case | |
| Johnson v. Needham | [1909] 1 KB 626 |
The Court upheld a decision of local justices to dismiss an information that the defendant "did cruelly ill-treat, abuse, and torture a certain animal" contrary to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849, s. 2 (1). The Act made it an offence to ill-treat, abuse, or torture an animal, and thereby established three separate offences from which the prosecutor should have elected. Note: Although the 1949 Act has been repealed, similar language appears in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a), and presumably the same reasoning applies to that statutory provision. |
Case | ||
| Jon H. Hammer v. The American Kennel Club and Brittany Club of America, a/k/a The American Brittany Club, Inc. |
Plaintiff, the owner of a Brittany Spaniel dog with an undocked tail, sought to enter his dog into AKC competitions. However, AKC standards stated that any tail substantially over four inches long would be "severely penalized." Plaintiff contended the practice of docking a dog’s tail (which oftentimes occurs without anesthesia or even under the proper care of a veterinarian) constituted an act of cruelty in violation of Agriculture and Markets Section 353 and was an arbitrary and capricious discriminatory standard. Plaintiff sought both declaratory relief declaring that the practice is illegal and discriminatory, and injunctive relief to enjoin the practice form being applied in New York and elsewhere. |
Pleading | |||
| Jones v. Beame | 380 N.E.2d 277 (N.Y. 1978) | 45 N.Y.2d 402, 408 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. 1978) |
In this New York case, the plaintiffs, organizations concerned with the treatment of animals in the New York City zoos, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against city officials who were charged with operating the zoos. Due to a citywide fiscal crisis, the City had to make “Draconian” choices with its human and animal charges, according to the court. In granting a motion to dismiss, this court declined to accept the responsibility for matters that it found to be administrative in nature. |
Case |