|
Ford v. Wiley |
A farmer who had caused the horns of his cattle to be sawn off, a procedure which had caused great pain, was liable to conviction for cruelty. For an operation causing pain to be justifiable, it had to be carried out in pursuit of a legitimate aim that could not reasonably be attained through less painful means, and the pain inflicted had to be proportionate to the objective sought. The mere fact that the defendant believed that the procedure was necessary did not remove him from liability to conviction if, judged according to the circumstances that he believed to exist, his actions were not objectively justifiable.
|
|
Freel v. Downs |
Cleveland H. Downs and Walter Smith were informed against for cruelty to animals, and they move to quash complaints. Complaint quashed against defendant Smith, and defendant Downs held to answer.
|
|
French and Spanish Animal Laws |
|
|
Friesen v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals |
An animal protection officer received a complaint that two dogs were not receiving proper care. Officer Barry Thiessen, an animal protection officer employed by the S.S.P.C.A., observed that dogs appeared malnourished and in distress from lack of food and water. Upon returning the next day, Thiessen determined that the conditions were unchanged and the dogs were then seized pursuant to the warrant. The appellant dog owner brought an application for declaration that the officer seized dogs in contravention of an owner's rights under s. 8 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in excess of officer's authority. In dismissing his application, the court found that the warrant was lawfully obtained pursuant to provisions of the Animal Protection Act, 1999. The officer had a legitimate reason to come to property of the dog owner to investigate after he received a complaint, and it was there that he saw the dogs’ condition in "plain view" according to the court.
|
|
Frye v. County of Butte |
After several administrative, trial court, and appeals hearings, the California court of appeals upheld a county’s decision to seize the plaintiffs’ horses for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 597.1(f). Notably, the appeals court failed to extend the law of the case, which generally provides that a prior appellate court ruling on the law governs further proceedings in the case, to prior trial court rulings. The appeals court also held that the trial court’s "Statement of Decision" resolved all issues set before it, despite certain remedies remaining unresolved and the court’s oversight of the plaintiffs' constitutionality complaint, and was therefore an appealable judgment. The appeals court also found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the appeals deadline with its document titled "Judgment."
|
|
Futch v. State |
Defendant appealed conviction of cruelty to animals for shooting and killing a neighbor's dog. The Court of Appeals held that the restitution award of $3,000 was warranted even though the owner only paid $750 for the dog. The dog had been trained to hunt and retrieve, and an expert testified that such a dog had a fair market value between $3,000 and $5,000.
|
|
GA - Cruelty - Chapter 11. Animal Protection |
The Georgia Animal Protection Act was passed in 2000 and provides for jail up to one year for general cruelty convictions and up to five years for an aggravated cruelty conviction. The judge is also allowed to order psychological counseling. The law also encompasses licensing provisions for kennels and impoundment provisions. |
|
GA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws |
This comprises Georgia's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the statute, "animal" does not include any fish or any pest that might be exterminated or removed. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he or she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful neglect. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but subsequent convictions incur enhanced penalties. A person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she knowingly and maliciously causes death or physical harm to an animal by rendering a part of such animal's body useless or by seriously disfiguring such animal. |
|
GA - Horses - Chapter 13. Humane Care for Equines. |
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. |
|
GA - Vehicle, animal - § 35-1-7. Law enforcement officers, limitation of liability |
This Georgia law relates to the rescue of animals from vehicles in emergency situations. Unlike other states with "pets in hot cars" laws, this Georgia law appears in the title related to liability for law enforcement actions rather than in the anti-cruelty laws. A law enforcement officer shall not be liable at law for any action or actions done while performing any duty at the scene of an emergency except for gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or malfeasance. “Emergency” means an occurrence involving, or appearing to involve, a clear and imminent danger or threat to life, health, or property, including, but not limited to, the rescuing of a person or pet from a locked vehicle when such person or pet remaining within such vehicle presents a clear and imminent danger to such person's or pet's life or health.
|
