Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jones | 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.) | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-454 | In this Ohio case, the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of keeping more than two dogs at his single-family residence contrary to an ordinance that limited the keeping of more than two dogs at a single-family residence (defendant was found to have three dogs, one of whom he said was "visiting" his daughter). In affirming defendant's conviction, the court found no merit to defendant's challenge that the term "kept" was ambiguous. Further, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the officer witnessed the dogs at the residence and defendant admitted to having three dogs in his home even without ownership of the third. | Case |
| State v. Graves | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 3129373 (Ohio Ct. App., 2017) | 2017 -Ohio- 6942 | In this Ohio case, defendant Graves appeals his misdemeanor cruelty to animals conviction under R.C. 959.13(A)(3). The conviction stems from an incident in 2016 where Graves left his dog in locked and sealed van while he went into a grocery store. According to the facts, the van was turned off in an unshaded spot with windows closed on a 90+ degree day. Witnesses at the scene called police after they engaged in an unsuccessful attempt to get defendant to leave the store. In total, the dog spent about 40-45 minutes locked in the van. Graves was issued a citation for cruelty to animals and later convicted at a bench trial. On appeal, Graves first asserts that R.C. 959.13(A)(3) is unconstitutional because the statute is void for vagueness as applied to him and overbroad. This court found that the definition of cruelty was not so unclear that it could not be reasonably understood by Graves. The court was unconvinced by appellant's arguments that the statute provided insufficient guidance to citizens, and left open relevant question such as length of time a dog can be left unattended, exact weather conditions, and issues of the size of dogs left in vehicles. The court noted that most statutes deal with "unforeseen circumstances" and do not spell out details with "scientific precision." In fact, the court noted "[t]he danger of leaving an animal locked in a sealed vehicle in hot and humid conditions is well-known." Additionally, the court did not find the law to be overbroad, as defendant's right to travel was not infringed by the law. Finally, defendant contends that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In rejecting this argument, the court found Graves acted recklessly under the law based on the hot and humid weather conditions and the fact that humans outside the van were experiencing the effects of extreme heat. Thus, the lower court's judgment was affirmed. | Case |
| NE - Swap Meets - (i) Exotic Animal Auctions and Swap Meets | Neb.Rev.St. 54-7,105 - 110 | NE ST § 54-7,105 - 110 | This law requires exotic animal auction or exchange venue organizers to maintain records in order to track animal diseases. | Statute |
| NJ - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | N. J. S. A. 2A:42-101 to 2A:42-113; 2C:29-3.1; 4:19-1 to 4:19-43; 4:19A-1 - 17; 4:21B-1 - 3; 4:22A-1 to 13; 23:4-25, 26, 46; 26:4-78 - 95; 40:48-1; 54:4-83 | These statutes comprise New Jersey's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws regarding domesticated animals in housing projects, rabies control laws, licensing requirements, and dangerous dog laws. | Statute | |
| McCall v. State | 540 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). |
Open fields doctrine; warrantless seizure. It was not unreasonable for humane society members to enter defendant's land and seize dogs where the dogs were kept in an open field clearly in view of neighbors and others, and where it was apparent that the dogs were emaciated and not properly cared for. |
Case | |
| In re New Jersey Pinelands Com'n Resolution | 812 A.2d 1113 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2003) | 356 N.J.Super. 363 |
This case concerns the approval of a settlement agreement for a residential development project that contained habitat critical to the survival of a local population of timber rattlesnakes, an endangered species in New Jersey. The court's review of the record found that there is no reason to interfere with the determination by the Commission, since there was ample evidence to support the Commission's decision to approve the settlement. The court also agreed with the lower court that the environmental organizations lacked standing to bring an endangered species counterclaim before the lower court. Specifically, the court found that the Department of Environmental Protection and the Commission did not fail to act in implementing the endangered species act; thus, no standing was conferred upon the groups. The court also noted that the DEP and the Commission acted in their requisite complementary roles in effecting the Act. |
Case |
| Sentencia Constitucional 1982/2011-R- Bolivia | Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional de Bolivia, Sentencia Constitucional 1982/2011-R | The Bolivia Constitutional Tribunal issued this decision in response to a "popular action," a constitutional mechanism safeguarding collective and diffuse rights. The complaint alleged that the municipal Mayor had infringed upon the right to integral education and environmental balance by neglecting to address requests for relocating animals at the "Oscar Alfaro Zoo," where they endured highly inadequate conditions. In its ruling, the tribunal highlighted the interconnectedness of humans with the environment, stressing that environmental preservation hinges on balance and health. Disruption of this delicate equilibrium poses risks to the environment and humans, who are also part of the biological chain. Recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a diffuse right, the court stresses it affects all members of the collective, which includes all elements of the environment and its ecosystems. Thus, the tribunal granted the requested protection, finding the Mayor responsible for violating the right to a healthy environment and the duty to preserve and protect it. The Mayor's inaction led to the tragic death of numerous animals at the zoo. The court ordered the immediate temporary relocation of the animals to specialized facilities to ensure their survival and the conservation of species at the zoo. However, it clarified that the popular action mechanism could not address the right to integral education. | Case | |
| In re: Tri-State Zoological Park of Western Maryland, Inc. | 2013 WL 8214620 (U.S.D.A.) | Mr. Candy started Tri-State, a zoo, in 2002 as a way to provide his children and other members of the community in Cumberland, Maryland, with an entertaining and educational activity. However, several violations of the Animal Welfare Act led to a cease and desist order and a 45 day suspension of the zoo’s license. | Case | |
| MS - Hunting, birds - § 49-1-39. Killing animals or birds injurious to agriculture; | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-1-39; Miss. Code Ann § 49-5-7 | MS ST § 49-1-39; MS ST § 49-5-7 | Mississippi amended its laws in 2000 to specifically disallow the killing of any bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and was further amended to prohibit the killing or molestation of any wild bird (other than a game bird and some excepted species). While the law was written with an evident bias toward agricultural protection, it does specifically mention the eagle as one of the species protected under federal law. | Statute |
| Hampton v.Hammons | 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1987) |
The five-year-old child hopped a fence, which was in disrepair, into his neighbor's yard to retrieve a ball. As he was trying to leave, he was severely bitten by a pit bull that the neighbor was keeping for his son. In reversing the judgment in part, the court held that the keeping of a pit bull might be a violation of Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances tit. 2, ch. 1, § (2)(d) (1973), so the child's negligence per se theory was actionable. The court held that the neighbor was the dog's owner as a matter of law under the dog-bite statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 4. sec. 42.1 (1981). |
Case |