Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dancy v. State | 287 So. 3d 931 (Miss. 2020) | 2020 WL 240457 (Miss. Jan. 16 , 2020) | The Justice Court of Union County found Michael Dancy guilty of three counts of animal cruelty and ordered the permanent forfeiture of Dancy’s six horses, four cats, and three dogs. Dancy appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the animals be permanently forfeited and found Dancy guilty. The circuit court also ordered Dancy to pay $39,225 for care and boarding costs for the horses. Dancy subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Essentially, Dancy failed to provide adequate shelter, food, and water for the animals. The Court found that the circuit court properly released the animals to an animal protection organization. The Court also found that the reimbursement order was permissible. Two of Dancy’s three convictions were for violations of the same statute regarding simple cruelty, one for his four cats and one for his three dogs. The Court held that, according to the statute's plain language, Dancy’s cruelty to a combination of dogs and cats occurring at the same time "shall constitute a single offense." Thus, the State cannot punish Dancy twice for the same offense without violating his right against double jeopardy. For that reason, the court vacated Dancy’s second conviction of simple cruelty. The court affirmed the permanent forfeiture and reimbursement order and his other cruelty conviction. | Case |
| IL - Pet Trusts - Chapter 760. Trusts and Fiduciaries. | 760 I.L.C.S. 3/408; 760 ILCS 3/1223 | This Illinois law represents the state's pet trust law. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. A trust instrument shall be liberally construed to bring the transfer within this Section, to presume against a merely precatory or honorary nature of its disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the transferor. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining the transferor's intent. | Statute | |
| CO - Wildlife trade - Illegal sale of wildlife; penalties | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-113 | CO ST § 33-6-113 | Colorado statute addressing illegal sale of wildlife, including bears. | Statute |
| Soucek v. Banham | 524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App., 1994) |
Dog owner brought action for damages against city and police officers that shot his dog, seeking punitive damages. The court observed that under Minnesota law dogs are personal property, and thus, the proper measure of compensatory damages for destroying an animal is the fair market value of the animal. The court further held Soucek cannot recover punitive damages for the loss of his pet because he only suffered property damage. Compensatory damages for the loss of Soucek's pet are limited to the fair market value of the animal. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Paluch (unpublished) | 84 Fed. Appx. 740 (9th Cir. 2003) | 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23275 |
The court first concluded that venue was proper for the smuggling charges and the conspiracy charge. Turning to the convictions, the court found that his convictions of felony conspiracy and smuggling were supported by sufficient evidence. The court rejected his argument that the general smuggling law was inapplicable to the acts for which he was convicted because Congress had separately criminalized this conduct as a misdemeanor under the Endangered Species Act. |
Case |
| Burkholder v. Department of Agriculture | 265 A.3d 863 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021) | In this Pennsylvania case, James Burkholder, d/b/a Whispering Spring Kennel (Burkholder), petitioned for review of an adjudication of the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) that imposed a $19,500 civil penalty on Burkholder for transferring two dogs in excess of the annual limit under his Class IV kennel license in December of 2017. Burkholder raises two arguments: first, the Dog Law does not specify that transfers of more than 60 dogs by a private kennel constitute violations; and two, the penalty imposed is excessive and unreasonable. This court first noted that a Kennel Class IV license clearly does not allow him to transfer more than 60 dogs and thus any transfers in excess violate the Dog Law. As to the excessive penalty argument, the court first examined the distinction between separate and ongoing violations of the Dog Law because it raised a question of first impression under the Dog Law. Relying on the distinction in other contexts, particularly regarding penalties imposed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), the court found that a kennel owner holding too many dogs could remedy the violation simply by transferring the excess dogs. The problem here is that, where an owner has transferred more dogs than his license allows, there is no way to correct the violation. Thus, said the court, a per-day fine is improper. "Each unauthorized transfer of a single dog is a single violation of the Dog Law, not a continuing violation, because it is not ongoing in nature and such transfers can be feasibly segregated into discrete violations so as to impose separate penalties." The court concluded that the Department erred as a matter of law by imposing ongoing penalties for two discrete unauthorized transfers. The order of the Department as to the excess transfers of dogs was affirmed, but the portion as to the amount of the penalty was vacated. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. | Case | |
| FL - Equine Activity Liability Statute- Chapter 773. Equine Activities. | West's F. S. A. § 773.01 - 773.06 | FL ST § 773.01 - 773.06 | This Florida statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. Liability will not be limited by statute, however, where the equine professional or sponsor knew the tack or equipment was faulty, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or is otherwise in lawful possession of the land or facilities where the injury is attributable to a known dangerous latent condition, commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, or intentionally injures the participant. Posting of warning signs alerting participants to the limitation of liability by law is also required. | Statute |
| CA - Hunting - Chapter 4. Deer. Article 3. Archery Deer Hunting. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4370 - 4371 | CA FISH & G § 4370 - 4371 | These two sections govern archery deer hunting in California. Archery hunting is done with a bow and arrow and hunters which participate in this type of hunting are restricted from carrying a firearm. | Statute |
| Barnes v. City of Anderson | 642 N.E.2d 1004 (Ind.App. 2 Dist. 1994) |
Virginia Barnes and Jan Swearingen appealed a trial court's decision in favor of the City of Anderson, Ind., granting a permanent injunction enjoining the women from keeping and maintaining Swearingen's pet Vietnamese pot-belly pig, Sassy, and ordering Sassy's removal from the residence. Appeals Court found for pig owner, holding that the phrase "raising or breeding" in an Anderson livestock ordinance refers to a commercial enterprise and not to the keeping of pigs as pets. |
Case | |
| Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Walker | 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) | 62 ERC 1644, 28 A.L.R.6th 755 |
Several plaintiffs - including six wildlife and animal advocacy groups, several state legislators and politicians, and more than a dozen individuals - bring a facial First Amendment challenge to the Utah constitution supermajority requirement for initiatives related to wildlife management. District court held the plaintiffs had standing, but dismissed the claims on their merit. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. |
Case |