Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Tohom | 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2013) | 109 A.D.3d 253; 2013 WL 3455673 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.); 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05234 |
This case, as a matter of first impression, considers whether a trial court was authorized to allow a "therapeutic comfort dog" to be present on witness stand for a 15-year-old-girl who was the victim in a predatory sexual assault and child endangerment case. Prosecutors sought to allow a Golden Retriever named Rose to accompany the child on the witness stand while she testified at the defendant’s trial. Prosecutors cited Criminal Procedure Law provisions regarding special witnesses and pointed to Executive Law §642-a, which allows a person supportive of a special witness to be “present and accessible” during testimony by such a witness. On appeal, defendant again argued that the dog would prejudice the jury against the defendant and would convey to the jury that the witness was under stress as a result of testifying and that this stress resulted from telling the truth. In finding that the comfort dog did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial, the appellate court agreed that the trial court's interpretation of Executive Law § 642-a "special witness" provision was correct. Further, the defendant failed to show that the dog Rose's presence was inherently prejudicial. |
Case | |
| England - Fur - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (England) Order 2004 | 2004 No. 100 | An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in England. | Statute | ||
| U.S. v. Lewis | 240 F.3d 866 (10th Cir. 2001) | 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 859; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 600 |
A jury convicted defendant of one count of violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 3371-3378. The jury found that defendant had violated Oklahoma law by capturing wild elk, holding them captive, and organizing at least one commercial elk hunt, without a license for those activities. The court affirmed. Violation of a state hunting law was an adequate basis for a Lacey Act prosecution. There was sufficient evidence to prove that the Oklahoma statute regarding commercial hunting licenses applied to defendant, and that defendant had knowledge of the statute's requirements. |
Case | |
| RI - Veterinary - Chapter 25. Veterinary Practice | Gen. Laws, 1956 § 5-25-1 to 17 | RI ST § 5-25-1 to 17 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| Wells v. Brown | 217 P.2d 995 (Cal.App.4.Dist. 1950) | 97 Cal.App.2d 361 (1950) |
In this California case, damages were assessed beyond the purchase price of a dog involved in a hit and run case where the defendant negligently ran over and killed a 15 month old pure-bred Waeimaraner. After the defendant ran over the dog, he shot the dog and buried it. The next morning he contacted the veterinarian listed on the collar, as well as the owner of the dog. The court upheld the jury verdict of $1,500 since the purchase price was determined to not reflect the market value at the time of the dog’s death. |
Case | |
| NC - Dangerous Dogs - Chapter 67. Dogs | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-14.1 | NC ST § 67-14.1 | This North Carolina statute provides that any dog which trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear on any wildlife refuge, sanctuary or management area designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, during the closed season for hunting with dogs on such refuge or management area, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and any wildlife protector may destroy it by humane method. Any unmuzzled dog running at large in such area shall be impounded and notice shall be published in some newspaper published in the county for two successive weeks. If no owner comes to claim the dog, it may be destroyed within 15 days after publication. | Statute | |
| In re Capers' Estate | 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) | 15 Fiduc.Rep. 150, 1963 WL 6573 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) |
In this Pennsylvania case, the testatrix directed in her will that her Irish setter dogs to be destroyed in a humane manner. The executors were unsure of what action to take and sought declaratory relief. In attempting to construe the testatrix's intent, the court found that she "evidently feared that either they would grieve for her or that no one would afford them the same affection and kindness that they received during her life." The court found that the intent of testatrix would be carried out if her two favored Irish setters were placed in an environment where they are given the same care and attention that she she gave them during her life. The final question the court grappled with was whether it was against public policy to hold valid a clause in a will directing the summary destruction of certain of decedent's property after her death. The court held that the clause was void as not being within the purview of the Wills Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and being against the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. |
Case | |
| Missouri Farmers Ass'n v. Kempker | 726 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.,1987) |
Missouri Farmers Association sued a dairy farmer on account and notes. The farmer counterclaimed, alleging that Association had supplied defective feed. The Supreme Court held that farmer's recovery for diminution in cows' value did not preclude recovery for loss of milk and calf production. However, the farmer failed to sufficiently link the feed to his damages, so his evidence of lost profits was speculative, which prevented recovery. |
Case | ||
| AL - Animal Shelters - § 3-10-1 to § 3-10-5 | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-10-1 to § 3-10-5 | This statute defines an animal shelter and describes a monthly report that each animal shelter must compile. Among other things, contents of the report include number of strays, adoptions, health-related issues, and costs incurred by the shelter. This report must be made available to the public, though a reasonable fee is appropriate. There is no cause of action created by this statute. | Statute | ||
| VT - Disaster - Vermont Emergency Operations Plan SSF 11 | Appendix III, SSF #11 | The Vermont State Emergency Operations Plan (SEOP) is the basis for the Vermont emergency management system. The Vermont Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) is the primary state agency. The Base Plan includes language for an "incident management and disaster response teams include Domestic Animal and Wildlife Emergency Response." The State Support Functions (SSFs) number 11 listed in Appendix III deals with animals, but with a focus more on eradication of zoonotic outbreaks. | Administrative |