Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan v. Kroupa | 702 A.2d 630 (Vt. 1997) | 167 Vt. 99 (1997) | Finder found Owner’s lost dog. Finder posted signs in order to locate Owner. More than a year later, the owner contacted Finder to take back the dog. However, Finder was permitted to keep the dog, since she had cared for the dog and made good efforts to locate the true owner. | Case |
| People v. Robards | 97 N.E.3d 600 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 12, 2018) | 2018 IL App (3d) 150832; 420 Ill.Dec. 718, 2018 WL 1276832 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 12, 2018) | This case is an appeal from an animal cruelty conviction against defendant Ms. Regina Robards. She seeks appeal on the grounds that the State failed to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Robards was charged with aggravated animal cruelty when her two dogs, Walker and Sparky, were discovered in her previous home emaciated, dehydrated, and dead. She had moved out of the home and into Ms. Joachim’s home in July 2014, telling Joachim that she was arranging for the dogs to be taken care of. However, when Joachim went over to the prior home in November 2014, she discovered Walker’s emaciated body on the living room floor. She called the police, who discovered Sparky’s body in a garbage bag in the bedroom. Robards’ conviction required that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally committed an act that caused serious injury or death to her two dogs, and failing to seek adequate medical care for them. On appeal, Robards concedes that the dogs both died from dehydration and starvation, and that she was the only person responsible for the dogs’ care. However, she argues that for her conviction to stand, the prosecutor must prove that she intended to cause serious injury or death to the dogs. The court disagrees, stating that for conviction only the act need be intentional, and that the act caused the death or serious injury of an animal. Notably, the court observed that "defendant is very fortunate to have only received a sentence of 12 months' probation for these heinous crimes," and criticized the circuit court for its "unjustly and inexplicably lenient" sentence simply because defendant only caused harm to an animal and not a human being. | Case |
| SD - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | S D C L § 20-13-23.1 - 4, 32-27-7 - 8; 40-1-38 - 40; 43-32-33 - 36 | SD ST § 20-13-23.1 - 4, 32-27-7 - 8; 40-1-38 - 40; 43-32-33 - 36 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Banasczek v. Kowalski | 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 94 (1979) | 1979 WL 489 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1979) |
Edward Banasczek (plaintiff) instituted an action in trespass against William Kowalski (defendant) for money damages resulting from the alleged shooting of two of plaintiff's dogs. The court held the following: “[T]he claim for emotional distress arising out of the malicious destruction of a pet should not be confused with a claim for the sentimental value of a pet, the latter claim being unrecognized in most jurisdictions. Secondly we do not think, as defendant argues, that the owner of the maliciously destroyed pet must have witnessed the death of his or her pet in order to make a claim for emotional distress.” Pennsylvania has summarily rejected a claim for loss of companionship for the death of a dog. |
Case |
| CT - Reindeer - 26-57a. Regulations for the establishment of in-state captive herds of cervids. | C.G.S.A. § 26-57a | This Connecticut law relates to the regulation of in-state captive herds of cervids, including reindeer. Under the law, not later than November 1, 2012, the Commissioner of Agriculture shall implement a pilot program for the issuance of two permits that allow not more than two Connecticut businesses to maintain not more than five reindeer each. | Statute | |
| Master's Degree in Animal Law and Society |
|
Basic page | ||
| OK - Domestic Violence - § 60.2. Protective order--Petition--Complaint requirement for certain stalking victims--Fees | 22 Okl. St. Ann. § 60.2 | OK ST T. 22 § 60.2 | This Oklahoma law reflects the state's provision for protective orders in cases of domestic abuse. The person seeking a protective order may further request the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either the petitioner, defendant or minor child residing in the residence of the petitioner or defendant. The court may order the defendant to make no contact with the animal and forbid the defendant from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal. | Statute |
| Matter of Ricco v Corbisiero | 565 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1991) | 165 A.D.2d 3 (1991) |
Petitioner harness race-horse driver was suspended by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, Harness Racing Division for 15 days for failing to drive his horse to the finish. The driver argued that whipping the horse had not improved his performance. Considering that the horse had equaled his best time, and had lost by only two feet, and that it would have been a violation of the New York anti-cruelty law (Agriculture and Markets Law ( § 353) to overdrive the horse, the court overturned the suspension. |
Case |
| CHAPTER 21 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY FISH AND WILDLIFE ORDINANCE |
CHAPTER 21 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY |
Local Ordinance | ||
| RI - Vehicle - § 31-22-28. Transporting animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 31-22-28 | RI ST § 31-22-28 | This Rhode Island law makes it unlawful for any person to transport any animal, whether for business or pleasure, in an open air motor vehicle unless certain requirements are met: (1) the animal is kept in an enclosed area of the vehicle; (2) the animal is under physical control of a person; or (3) the animal is safely restrained and harnessed by means other than a neck restraint. Violation results in a fine of $50 to $100, with an increase of up to $200 for each subsequent offense. | Statute |
