Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carroll v. State | 922 N.E.2d 755 (Ind.App., 2010) | 2010 WL 932363 (Ind.App.) |
Defendant Lee Carroll appealed his sentence after the trial court accepted his plea of guilty to two counts of class A misdemeanor dog bite resulting in serious bodily injury. While the court noted that Defendant's lack of criminal history was a mitigating factor, the "great personal injury" suffered by the victim far exceeded any mitigation. On each count, the trial court sentenced Carroll to 365 days, with four days suspended, and ordered “both” to “run consecutive to one another.” On appeal, Defendant argued that any consideration of the his dogs' breed was improper. However, the court found that the other evidence was sufficient to support his sentence (in a footnote the court addressed it directly: "We need not address whether the trial court erred to the extent it found the breed of his dogs to be an aggravator..."). The court was not persuaded that the nature of the offenses or the character of the offender justified revising his sentence. |
Case |
| Turtle Island Restoration Project v. U.S. Department of Commerce | 438 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2006) |
Environmental Groups sued the National Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Department of Commerce for making regulations which allowed swordfish longline fishing along the Hawaii coast, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Court found that because the regulations were made under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson Act), and because that Act had a 30-day time limit for when challenges to regulations could be made, the environmental groups has not brought their challenge to the regulations in time. |
Case | |
| G.M. v. PetSmart, Inc. | 127 F. Supp. 3d 960 (S.D. Ind. 2015) |
In this case, plaintiffs filed a suit for damages on behalf of their son against the defendant, PetSmat, Inc., after their son contracted rat bite fever from the pet rats his parents purchased from PetSmart. Plaintiff’s purchased the pet rats in September of 2011 and their son was diagnosed with rat bite fever in April of 2012. Defendants moved for summary judgement and the court granted the motion. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs needed to provide evidence from expert testimony in order to establish that their son had contracted rat bite fever from the pet rats. The defendants established that rat bite fever could be contracted in other ways aside from rats, including mosquitoes and ticks. As a result, the court found it crucial to have expert testimony in order to determine whether or not the rat bite fever was actually contracted from a rat. Since the plaintiffs had not introduced any expert testimony or other evidence to establish that the rate bite fever in fact was contracted from a rat, the court dismissed plaintiffs claim and held for the defendant. |
Case | |
| KS - Hunting - Unlawful Acts. 32-1014. Obstruction or impeding of lawful activities | K. S. A. 32-1014 | KS ST 32-1014 | This Kansas law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, furharvesting or fishing. The law does not apply to law enforcement and does not limit the right of landowners or their tenants to limit trespass. | Statute |
| CT - Spay and Neuter - Chapter 436A. Animal Population Control | C. G. S. A. § 22-380a to 380m | CT ST §§ 22-380a to 380m | This set of Connecticut laws provides the state's dog and cat sterilization laws. Under the section, no pound is allowed to sell or give away any unspayed or unneutered dog or cat to any person unless such pound receives $45 from the person buying or adopting such dog or cat. These funds are paid quarterly by the municipality into the animal population control account established under section 22-380g. At the time of receipt of such payment, the pound shall provide a voucher, for the purpose of sterilization and vaccination benefits to the person buying or adopting such dog or cat. The chapter also provides the procedure for a veterinarian to participate in the program and the method by which he or she would be paid. Further, the law states that a town clerk may collect an additional $6 for each license issued pursuant to section 22-338 for an unspayed or unneutered dog. | Statute |
| Green v. Housing Authority of Clackamas County | 994 F.Supp. 1253 (D. Oregon, 1998) | Plaintiffs were tenants of a county housing authority and alleged that the housing authority violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, by failing to reasonably accommodate their request for a waiver of a "no pets" policy to allow for a hearing assistance animal in the rental unit to reasonably accommodate a hearing disability. The housing authority argued that the dog was not a reasonable accommodation for the tenant's specific disability because the dog was not certified as a hearing assistance animal. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding that the housing authority violated the federal statutes when it required proof from the tenants that the dog had received hearing assistance training. | Case | |
| Labor Commission v. FCS Community Management | --- P.3d ----, 2024 WL 370160 (Utah App., 2024) | 2024 UT App 14 | This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief. | Case |
| Crawford v. Van Buren County, Ark. | 678 F.3d 666 (C.A.8 (Ark.)) | 2012 WL 1813423 (C.A.8 (Ark.)) |
In this § 1983 action, defendant kennel operator alleged taking of private property without just compensation, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations in relation to seizure of dogs, and that the local humane society conspired with government entities. On appeal of summary judgment for the defendants, the court found her claims against the county were barred, and that she failed to first exhaust her administrative remedies. The animal control officer was acting pursuant to a valid search warrant when she entered the property to seize the dogs, and, under an animal cruelty plea agreement, had authority to inspect Crawford's premises. With regard to the Humane Society defendants, the court found summary judgment proper because there was no evidence amounting to a civil conspiracy to seize the dogs for personal gain. |
Case |
| State v. Milewski | 194 So. 3d 376 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g denied (June 3, 2016), review denied, No. SC16-1187, 2016 WL 6722865 (Fla. Nov. 15, 2016) | 2016 WL 231314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2016) | This Florida case involves the appeal of defendant's motion to suppress evidence in an animal cruelty case. Specifically, defendant Milewski challenged the evidence obtained during the necropsy of his puppy, alleging that he did not abandon his property interest in the body of the deceased dog because he thought the puppy's remains would be returned to him in the form of ashes. The necropsy showed that the puppy suffered a severe brain hemorrhage, extensive body bruises, and a separated spinal column that were consistent with severe physical abuse (which was later corroborated by Milewski's confession that he had thrown the dog). The trial court granted the motion to suppress and further found that law enforcement infringed on defendant's rights as the "patient's owner" when they interviewed the veterinarian and obtained veterinary records without consent or a subpoena, contrary to Florida law. On appeal, this court found that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to abandoned property. When Milewski abandoned his puppy's remains for the less-expensive "group cremation" at the vet's office, he gave up his expectation of privacy. As such, the court found that he was not deprived of his property without consent or due process when animal services seized the puppy's remains without a warrant. Further, this court found that there was no basis to suppress the veterinarian's voluntary statements about the puppy's condition or the necropsy report. The motion to suppress was reversed as to the doctor's statements/testimony and the evidence from the necropsy. The trial court's suppression of the hospital's medical records obtained without a subpoena was affirmed. | Case |
| GA - Horses - Chapter 13. Humane Care for Equines. | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-13-1 to 10 | GA ST § 4-13-1 to 4-13-10 | This section comprises Georgia's Humane Care for Equines Act. The act states that it is unlawful for the owner of any equine to fail to provide adequate food and water to such equine; to fail to provide humane care for such equine; or to unnecessarily overload, overdrive, torment, or beat any equine or to cause the death of any equine in a cruel or inhumane manner. The Act also outlines procedures for the care impounded of equines as well as disposal procedures, which includes auction and euthanasia, when the owner cannot be found or refuses to enter into a consent order. Violation of this chapter results a misdemeanor. | Statute |