Anti-Cruelty
Displaying 431 - 440 of 974
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Larobina v R |
|
| Law Review - Cruelty - Cosmetics | |
| Laws and Regulations Concerning Equine Transport |
|
| Lawson v. Pennsylvania SPCA | Upon an investigation of numerous complaints, the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty obtained a warrant and searched plaintiffs’ house. As a result, plaintiffs were charged with over a hundred counts that were later withdrawn. Plaintiffs then filed the present case, asserting violations of their federal constitutional rights, as well as various state-law tort claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion in part as to: (1) false arrest/false imprisonment, malicious prosecution of one plaintiff and as to 134 of the charges against another plaintiff, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy; and (2) to the following claims in Count One: verbal abuse, security of person and property, false arrest/false imprisonment, due process and equal protection, and failure to train or discipline as the result of a policy or custom. The District Court denied the motion with respect to (1) the following claim in Count One: unreasonable search and seizure and the individual defendants' request for qualified immunity in connection with that claim; and (2) with respect to one plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, but only to the charge relating to the puppy's facial injuries. |
| Lay v. Chamberlain | Chamberlain owned a dog breeding kennel with over one hundred fifty dogs. An investigation was conducted when the Sheriff's Office received complaints about the condition of the animals. Observations indicated the kennel was hot, overcrowded, and poorly ventilated. The dogs had severely matted fur, were sick or injured, and lived in cages covered in feces. Dog food was moldy and water bowls were dirty. Many cages were stacked on top of other cages, allowing urine and feces to fall on the dogs below. A court order was granted to remove the dogs. The humane society, rescue groups, and numerous volunteers assisted by providing food, shelter, grooming and necessary veterinary care while Chamberlain's criminal trial was pending. Chamberlain was convicted of animal cruelty. The organizations and volunteers sued Chamberlain for compensation for the care provided to the animals. The trial court granted the award and the appellate court affirmed. Ohio code authorized appellees' standing to sue for the expenses necessary to prevent neglect to the animals. The evidence was sufficient to support an award for damages for the humane society, the rescue groups, and the individual volunteers that protected and provided for the well-being of the dogs during the months of the trial. |
| LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'DEMURRER | |
| Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms, LLC | This reflects Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief. In a press release, Plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens states, "[t]oday, one of the country’s largest poultry producers and a KFC supplier, Case Farms, was sued by animal-welfare charity Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) in Burke County District Court for its pattern of gross mismanagement and animal cruelty. The complaint comes on the heels of a 2021 undercover investigation by animal advocacy group Animal Outlook, revealing a trend of cruel and deadly abuse at a Morganton, N.C. Case Farms hatchery that processes more than 200,000 chicks daily. LIC accuses Case Farms of violating both industry standards and North Carolina law." |
| LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS, RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO QUASH FIVE SUBPOENAS | The court denied the defendants’ motion to quash five business records subpoenas issued to various county agencies, finding the requested documents directly relevant to the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants violated California animal cruelty laws. The court reaffirmed that the plaintiff, as a non-profit humane society, has standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Corporations Code sections 10404 and 14501, and that the subpoenas were not overbroad because they were limited to records concerning animals owned or abused by the named defendants. Regarding the official information privilege under Evidence Code section 1040, the court found no absolute bar to disclosure and, after balancing the interests, determined that the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice outweighed any potential confidentiality interests of the non-party agencies, especially since none of the agencies moved to quash or assert any privilege. The court further ruled that the parties’ existing stipulated protective order adequately safeguards any confidential business information or trade secrets that might be produced. Consequently, the court ordered the motion to quash denied, stayed the order’s effective date for fifteen days, and declined to award sanctions, finding the parties’ positions substantially justified. |
| Leider v. Lewis | Plaintiffs, taxpayers Aaron Leider and the late Robert Culp, filed suit against the Los Angeles Zoo and Director Lewis to enjoin the continued operation of the elephant exhibit and to prevent construction of a new, expanded exhibit. Plaintiffs contend that the Zoo's conduct violates California animal cruelty laws and constitutes illegal expenditure of public funds and property. The case went to trial and the trial court issued limited injunctions relating to forms of discipline for the elephants, exercise time, and rototilling of the soil in the exhibit. On appeal by both sides, this court first took up whether a taxpayer action could be brought for Penal Code violations or to enforce injunctions. The Court held that the earlier Court of Appeals' decision was the law of the case as to the argument that the plaintiff-taxpayer was precluded from obtaining injunctive relief for conduct that violated the Penal Code. The Court found the issue was previously decided and "is not defeated by raising a new argument that is essentially a twist on an earlier unsuccessful argument." Further, refusing to apply this Civil Code section barring injunctions for Penal Code violations will not create a substantial injustice. The Court also found the order to rototill the soil was proper because it accords with the "spirit and letter" of Penal Code section 597t (a law concerning exercise time for confined animals). As to whether the exhibit constituted animal cruelty under state law, the Court found no abuse of discretion when the trial court declined to make such a finding. Finally, the Court upheld the lower court's ruling that declined further injunctive relief under section 526a (a law that concerns actions against state officers for injuries to public property) because the injury prong could not be satisfied. As stated by the Court, "We agree with the trial court that there is no standard by which to measure this type of harm in order to justify closing a multi-million dollar public exhibit." |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. (in Hebrew) | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. |