Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| 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 |
| People v. Scott | 71 N.Y.S.3d 865 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. Mar. 13, 2018) | 59 Misc.3d 688, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28075, 2018 WL 1279067 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. Mar. 13, 2018) | This case dealt with a man charged with two counts of Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals and Failure to Provide Sustenance, in violation of section 353 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (“AML”). On September 11, 2017, two Police Officers were called to an apartment building because tenants of the apartment building were complaining about a foul odor coming from the defendant's apartment unit. It was suspected that a dead body might be in the apartment based on the Officers' experience with dead body odors. Upon arrival the Officers could hear a dog on the other side of the door pacing and wagging its tail against the door. The Officers entered the apartment after getting no response from the tenant under the emergency doctrine. The Officers searched the apartment for a dead body but did not find one, but instead found a male German Shepard dog and a domestic shorthair cat, both of which were malnourished and emaciated. Their food and water bowls were empty and there was wet and dry feces and urine saturating the apartment unit floor. The police seized the animals and the vet that examined the animals concluded that the animals were malnourished and emaciated, and had been in those conditions for well over 12 hours. The defendant challenged the seizure of the animals and the subsequent security posting for costs incurred by the ASPCA for care of the dog for approximately 3 months. The court held that the defendant did violate a section of Article 26 of the AML, and that there was a valid warrant exception applicable to this case. Further, the court held that $2,567.21 is a reasonable amount to require the respondent/defendant to post as security. | Case |
| VA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6500 - 6590; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361; § 18.2-144.1 | These Virginia statutes set forth Title 3.2, the Comprehensive Animal Care laws, which include the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. For the purposes of Sec. 3.2-6570, the operative animal cruelty law, animal means any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish except those fish captured and killed or disposed of in a reasonable and customary manner. The section has a misdemeanor animal cruelty law as well as a felony provision related to torture or willful infliction of cruelty. The section requires companion animal owners to provide adequate care. | Statute | |
| MI - Grosee Pointe Woods - Breed - Sec. 6-94. - Vicious dogs and other vicious animals prohibited. | GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6-94 |
The municipal code of Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, makes it unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any pit bull terrier (as defined in the law including certain mixed breed dogs). Any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier by a court shall be destroyed or removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Haines v. Hampshire County Commission | 607 S.E.2d 828 (W.V. 2004) |
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. |
Case | |
| IL - Farming - The Animal Welfare Regulations, Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015 | Animal Welfare Regulations 2015 | Attached are the Animal Welfare Regulations from 2015 on confined pigs, available in both English and Hebrew. These Israeli regulations ban the use of gestation crates without exception (isolation is allowed for up to a week for insemination, but in a compartment wide enough to allow the sow to turn around) and farrowing crates are allowed only up to 2 weeks after the sow gave birth. | Statute | |
| SD - Endangered Species - Chapter 34A-8. Endangered and Threatened Species | S D C L § 34A-8-1 - 13; 34A-8A-1 - 9 | SD ST 34A-8A-1 to 13; 34A-8-1 - 9 | These South Dakota statutes provide the definitions and regulations related to endangered and threatened species in the state. Under statute, state agencies shall establish and conduct control programs at state expense on private lands that are encroached upon by prairie dogs from contiguous public lands. It is a misdemeanor to take, possess, transport, import, export, process, sell or offer for sale, buy or offer to buy (nor may a common or contract carrier transport or receive for shipment) a listed species as defined by statute. | Statute |
| Ruden v. Hansen | 206 N.W.2d 713 (Iowa 1973) |
This appeal stems from an action against a defendant veterinarian for the alleged negligent vaccination of plaintiff’s pregnant hogs (gilts). The court articulated the standard of care: "As a veterinarian defendant was duty bound to bring to his service the learning, skill and care which characterizes the profession generally. In other words, the care and diligence required was that as a careful and trustworthy veterinarian would be expected to exercise. . . We are convinced the correct standard of the veterinarian's care should be held to that exercised generally under similar circumstances." |
Case | |
| State v. Siliski | 238 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn.Crim.App., 2007) | 2007 WL 1425479 (Tenn.Crim.App.) |
The defendant operated a dog breeding business, “Hollybelle's Maltese,” in which she bred purebred Maltese dogs in her Franklin home, advertised the resulting puppies on an Internet website, and shipped the puppies to buyers located around the country. She was convicted by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of eleven counts of animal cruelty. The main issue on appeal concerned the imposition of sentence, which included both consecutive terms of probation and a permanently prohibition from engaging in any commercial activity involving animals. The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions but concluded that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive periods of probation in conjunction with concurrent sentences. However, the court found that the trial court's permanent prohibition against her buying, selling, breeding, or engaging in any commercial activity involving animals was authorized by the animal cruelty statute. As the court stated, "Given this proof and the court's findings, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in ordering that the defendant be permanently barred from engaging in commercial activity with respect to dogs." |
Case |