Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques | 869 A.2d 679 (Conn. 2005) | 88 Conn. App. 358 (2005) |
An environmental nonprofit organization sought an injunction to prevent a housing development from being constructed. The nonprofit organization claimed the development was in violation of the Connecticut Endangered Species Act because it would destroy the habitat of an endangered rattlesnake. The trial court held the development was lawful and the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
Case |
| IL - Domestic Violence - Article 112A. Domestic Violence | 725 ILCS 5/112A-14 | IL ST CH 725 § 5/112A-14 | This Illinois law allows a court to issue an order of protection if the court finds that petitioner has been abused by a family or household member. It also allows for the protection of animals in domestic violence situations. Under Section (b)(11.5), the court can "[g]rant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent and order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal." | Statute |
| City of Toledo, Appellee v. Paul Tellings, Appellant |
This Ohio case concerns a Toledo ordinance that limited the ownership of Pit Bull dogs to only one dog per household (respondent had three pit bulls). Essentially, the ordinance classifies a Pit Bull as a “vicious dog” under the vicious dog ordinance even if the dog has not engaged in aggressive or vicious behavior. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District found that the ordinance as written was constitutionally vague. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2007, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | ||
| U.S. v. Okelberry | 112 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Utah 2000) |
Defense counsel not deemed ineffective for failing to advise defendant that a conviction under the BGEPA could result in loss of grazing rights. |
Case | |
| Commonwealth v. Waller | 58 N.E.3d 1070 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016), review denied, 476 Mass. 1102, 63 N.E.3d 387 (2016) | 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295, 2016 WL 4993441 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016) | Tasha Waller was convicted of animal cruelty for starving her dog to death. As a result of this conviction, Waller was placed on probation which prohibited her from owning animals and allowed for random searches of her property. Waller appealed this decision for the following reasons: (1) the animal cruelty statute under which she was convicted was unconstitutionally vague; (2) the expert witness testimony was improper and insufficient to support her conviction; (3) she may not as a condition of her probation be prohibited from owning animals, and the condition of probation allowing suspicions searches should be modified. The court reviewed Waller’s arguments and determined the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it is common for animal cruelty statutes to only refer to “animals” in general and not specifically mention dogs. The court noted that dogs are commonly understood to fall within the category of animals and therefore the statute was not vague. Also, the court held that the expert witness testimony from the veterinarian was not improper because the veterinarian was capable of examining the dog and making a determination as to how the dog had died. Lastly, the court held that it was not improper to prohibit Waller from owning animals, but did agree that the searches of her property should only be warranted if authorities have reasonable suspicion to search the property. Ultimately, the court upheld Waller’s conviction and probation but modified the terms in which authorities are able to search her property. | Case |
| Friends of Animals v. Jewell | 115 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2015) | 2015 WL 4483956 (D.D.C., 2015) | Friends of Animals (FOA) filed a citizen petition under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to get the Department of Interior to determine whether the spider tortoise and flat-tail tortoise were endangered species. After waiting two years for an answer, FOA filed suit, arguing the Department’s silence had caused the group various injuries. The district court, however, found the supposed harms did not rise to the level of “concrete and particularized” injuries in fact, and granted the Department's motion to dismiss FOA's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Case |
| Brower v. Daley | 93 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (2000) |
Based on the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary’s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies. |
Case | |
| FL - Dangerous Dog - CHAPTER 767. DAMAGE BY DOGS. | West's F. S. A. § 767.14 | FL ST 767.14 | This Florida statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog act limits the ability of local governments from enacting restrictions on dangerous dogs more severe than the state law, as long as the regulations are not breed-specific. | Statute |
| MO - Independence - Breed - Sec. 3.03.006. Keeping of Pit Bulls Prohibited | INDEPENDENCE, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.03.006 (2006) |
The municipal code of Independence, Missouri makes it unlawful to own, possess, transport, or sell any pit bull with exceptions. However, the pit bull ban does not apply to registered show dogs that meet certain requirements or dogs whose owners have received a pit bull license on or before the date the ordinance was enacted. Requirements for ownership include an owner who is at least 18 years old, sterilization of the dog, and liability insurance of at least $300,000. Violations may result in a fine of $500, 60 days in jail, and immediate sterilization of the dog, impoundment, and disposal. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Pierce | State v. Pierce, 7 Ala. 728 (1845) |
The Defendant was charge with cruelty to animals for the killing of a certain spotted bull, belonging some person to the jurors unknow. The lower court found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking review of whether the defense of provocation could be used. The Court determined the answer to be yes. Thus the Court reversed and remanded the case. |
Case |