Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duncan v. State | 975 N.E.2d 838 (Ct. App. Ind. 2012) | 2012 WL 4470240 (Ct. App. Ind.) |
A complaint regarding the welfare of horses led to the defendant being convicted of 6 charges of animal cruelty, all of which were class A misdemeanors. Upon appeal, the defendant argued that he had not knowingly waived his right to a jury trial, that Indiana’s animal cruelty law was unconstitutionally vague and that there was no sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity. The appeals court agreed that the defendant did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial and therefore reversed and remanded the case on that issue; however, the appeals court disagreed with the defendant on the other issues. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Case | |
| NY - Licenses - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. Article 7. Licensing, Identification and Control of Dogs | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 110 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 110 | This New York statute provides the schedule of license fees for all dogs. It also enables local municipalities to enact licensing ordinances in addition to the fee proscribed by statute. This additional revenue shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this article and any rule, regulation, or local law or ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, including subsidizing the spaying or neutering of dogs and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership. | Statute | |
| I.B. Sirmans v. State | 534 S.E.2d 862(Ga.App.,2000) | 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2440 |
Defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The portion of the sentence depriving defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were abused vacated and case remanded; judgment affirmed in all other respects because the motion to suppress was properly denied, and defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to sever the trial. |
Case | |
| Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass'n Inc., (A.L.V.A.) v. Weinberger | 765 F.2d 937 (C.A.9 (Cal.),1985) | 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,697 (C.A.9 (Cal.),1985) |
The Animal Lovers Volunteer Association (ALVA) brought this action to enjoin the Navy from shooting feral goats on San Clemente Island (a military enclave under the jurisdiction of the Navy). After the district court granted (Cite as: 765 F.2d 937, *938) summary judgment for the Navy, the ALVA appealed. This Court found that the ALVA failed to demonstrate standing, where it only asserted an organizational interest in the problem, rather than allegations of actual injury to members of the organization. The organization failed to demonstrate an interest that was distinct from an interest held by the public at large. Affirmed.
|
Case | |
| England and Wales - Dogs - The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 | 2015 No. 138 | An order providing exemptions from the immediate destruction of a dangerous dog, by way of a Contingent Destruction Order. Following a conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Court must either order the immediate destruction of the dog, or the contingent destruction of a dog if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety. Contains conditions that must be met in relation to the dog, and requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with. | Statute | ||
| TX- Dangerous Animals - G. Caging Requirements and Standards for Dangerous Wild Animals. | 25 TX ADC § 169.131, 132 | 25 TAC § 169.131, 132 | This regulation establishes caging requirements and minimum standards of care for "dangerous wild animals," including: gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, lions, tigers, cheetahs, ocelots, cougars, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, lynxes, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, and all hybrids thereof. | Administrative | |
| CA - Elephant Training - § 2128. Elephants; prohibited practices; penalties | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2128 | CA FISH & G § 2128 | This statute (operative on January 1, 2018) prohibits a person who houses, possesses, manages, or is in direct contact with an elephant from using a billhook, ankus, baseball bat, axe handle, pitchfork, and other devices that inflict pain for the purpose of training or controlling the elephant. Any person caught in violation of this statute will be subject to civil penalty and a suspension or revocation of his or her license to lawfully possess the animal. | Statute | |
| NC - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 67. Dogs. Article 1A. Dangerous Dogs. | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-1 to 18; N.C.G.S.A. § 130A-196, 130A-200 | NC ST § 67-1 to 18; NC ST § 130A-196, 130A-200 | These North Carolina statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog and dog bite laws. Among the provisions include misdemeanor penalties for an owner if a dangerous dog attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and strict liability in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal. Another statute provides that any person brought to receive medical treatment for a dog bite must report it to the local health director and the animal must be confined for a ten day observation period. | Statute | |
| State v. Beekman | State v. Beckman, 27 N.J.L. 124 (1858) |
The defendant was convicted, in the Somerset Oyer and Terminer, of malicious mischief. The indictment charges that the defendant unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously did wound one cow, of the value of $ 50, of the goods and chattels of J. C. T. The defendant appealed the conviction contending that the act charged in the indictment didn't constitute an indictable offence in this state. The Court held that the facts charged in this indictment constitute no indictable offence, and the Court of Over and Terminer should be advised accordingly. |
Case | ||
| Celinski v. State | 911 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. App. 1995). |
Criminal conviction of defendant who tortured cats by poisoning them and burning them in microwave oven. Conviction was sustained by circumstantial evidence of cruelty and torture. |
Case |