Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth v. Brown | Commonwealth v. Brown, 66 Pa. Super. 519 (1917). | No. 16, Oct. T., 1916 |
The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals for the use of acid on some horses' feet. The defendant appealed the descision because the lower court had found the Commonwealth's circumstantial evidence to be enough to submit the question of quilt to the jury. The Superior Court found that some of the evidence was improperly admitted by the lower court. Thus, the Superior Court reversed the judgement. |
Case |
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jones | 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.) | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-454 | In this Ohio case, the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of keeping more than two dogs at his single-family residence contrary to an ordinance that limited the keeping of more than two dogs at a single-family residence (defendant was found to have three dogs, one of whom he said was "visiting" his daughter). In affirming defendant's conviction, the court found no merit to defendant's challenge that the term "kept" was ambiguous. Further, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the officer witnessed the dogs at the residence and defendant admitted to having three dogs in his home even without ownership of the third. | Case |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute | |
| OR - Vehicle - 811.200. Carrying dog on external part of vehicle; penalties | O.R.S. § 811.200 | This Oregon law states that a person commits a Class D traffic violation if he or she carries a dog upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any automobile or truck that is upon a highway unless the dog is protected by framework, carrier or other device sufficient to keep it from falling from the vehicle. | Statute | |
| NJ - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | N. J. S. A. 2A:42-101 to 2A:42-113; 2C:29-3.1; 4:19-1 to 4:19-43; 4:19A-1 - 17; 4:21B-1 - 3; 4:22A-1 to 13; 23:4-25, 26, 46; 26:4-78 - 95; 40:48-1; 54:4-83 | These statutes comprise New Jersey's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws regarding domesticated animals in housing projects, rabies control laws, licensing requirements, and dangerous dog laws. | Statute | |
| McCall v. State | 540 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). |
Open fields doctrine; warrantless seizure. It was not unreasonable for humane society members to enter defendant's land and seize dogs where the dogs were kept in an open field clearly in view of neighbors and others, and where it was apparent that the dogs were emaciated and not properly cared for. |
Case | |
| In re New Jersey Pinelands Com'n Resolution | 812 A.2d 1113 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2003) | 356 N.J.Super. 363 |
This case concerns the approval of a settlement agreement for a residential development project that contained habitat critical to the survival of a local population of timber rattlesnakes, an endangered species in New Jersey. The court's review of the record found that there is no reason to interfere with the determination by the Commission, since there was ample evidence to support the Commission's decision to approve the settlement. The court also agreed with the lower court that the environmental organizations lacked standing to bring an endangered species counterclaim before the lower court. Specifically, the court found that the Department of Environmental Protection and the Commission did not fail to act in implementing the endangered species act; thus, no standing was conferred upon the groups. The court also noted that the DEP and the Commission acted in their requisite complementary roles in effecting the Act. |
Case |
| State v. Josephs | 328 Conn. 21, 176 A.3d 542 (2018) | 2018 WL 576792 (Conn. Jan. 30, 2018) | In this Connecticut case, defendant, Delano Josephs appeals his judgment of conviction of a single violation of § 53–247(a). The incident stems from Defendant's shooting of his neighbor's cat with a BB gun. A witness heard the discharge of the BB gun, then saw a man he recognized as defendant walking with a BB gun in his hands in a "stalking" manner. Over a week later, defendant's neighbor noticed blood on her cat's shoulder and brought her cat to the veterinarian who found three or four metal objects that resembled BBs near the cat's spine. After receiving this diagnosis, the cat's owner reported to police that her neighbor was "shooting her cats." Animal control officers then interviewed defendant who admitted he has a BB gun and shoots at cats to scare them away, but "he had no means of hurting any cats." At the trial level, defendant raised the argument that § 53–247(a) requires specific intent to harm an animal. The trial court disagreed, finding the statute requires only a general intent to engage in the conduct. On appeal, defendant argues that since he was convicted under the "unjustifiably injures" portion of § 53–247(a), the trial court applied the wrong mens rea for the crime. In reviewing the statute, this court observed that the use of the term "unjustifiably" by the legislature is meant to distinguish that section from the section that says "intentionally." Thus, the legislature use of two different terms within the same subsection convinced the court that clause under which defendant was convicted is only a general intent crime. On defendant's void for vagueness challenge, the court found that this unpreserved error did not deprive him of a fair trial. A person of ordinary intelligence would understand that shooting a cat for trespassing is not a justifiable act. While the court agreed with defendant that "unjustifiably injures" is susceptible to other interpretations, in the instant case, defendant conduct in killing a companion animal is not permitted under this or other related laws. The judgment was affirmed. | Case |
| MS - Hunting, birds - § 49-1-39. Killing animals or birds injurious to agriculture; | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-1-39; Miss. Code Ann § 49-5-7 | MS ST § 49-1-39; MS ST § 49-5-7 | Mississippi amended its laws in 2000 to specifically disallow the killing of any bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and was further amended to prohibit the killing or molestation of any wild bird (other than a game bird and some excepted species). While the law was written with an evident bias toward agricultural protection, it does specifically mention the eagle as one of the species protected under federal law. | Statute |
| Hampton v.Hammons | 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1987) |
The five-year-old child hopped a fence, which was in disrepair, into his neighbor's yard to retrieve a ball. As he was trying to leave, he was severely bitten by a pit bull that the neighbor was keeping for his son. In reversing the judgment in part, the court held that the keeping of a pit bull might be a violation of Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances tit. 2, ch. 1, § (2)(d) (1973), so the child's negligence per se theory was actionable. The court held that the neighbor was the dog's owner as a matter of law under the dog-bite statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 4. sec. 42.1 (1981). |
Case |