Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 511 - 520 of 974
Titlesort descending Summary
Milburn v. City of Lebanon

Plaintiff Milburn was acquitted of misdemeanor animal abuse on appeal, but a Lebanon police officer removed Milburns’ dog from her possession. While the appeal was pending, the Defendant, City of Lebanon, gave the dog to an animal shelter. The dog was later adopted by a new owner. The Linn County Circuit Court ordered the City to return the dog to Milburn after the acquittal but the Defendant City failed to comply. Milburn then brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against the City of Lebanon. The City moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim, and the United States District Court, for the District of Oregon, granted that motion while giving leave for Milburn to amend her complaint. In the Amended Complaint, Milburn contended that the City’s refusal to return her dog pursuant to the state court order deprived her of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Milburn also asserted a violation of her procedural due process rights. The United States District Court, for the District of Oregon, reasoned that while Milburn alleged a state-law property interest in her dog, she failed to allege that the Defendant City deprived her of that interest without adequate process. Milburn also did not allege state remedies to be inadequate. Those two omissions in combination were fatal to Miburn's procedural due process claim. Also, Milburn's assertion that the court issued an order and that the City did not comply with, is an attack on the result of the procedure. The court reasoned that attacking the result instead of the process of a procedure does not state a procedural due process claim. Milburn’s procedural due process claim was then dismissed. The Court also held that it did not have jurisdiction over Milburn’s injunctive relief claim. Therefore, Milburn's request for injunctive relief was dismissed with prejudice. However, the court held that Milburn could seek monetary damages. While Defendant City’s second motion to dismiss was granted, Milburn was granted leave to amend her complaint within 90 days with regard to her claim for actual and compensatory damages.


 
Mills v. State


In criminal conviction for cruelty to animals, statute requires that sentences arising out of same criminal offenses be prosecuted in single action and run concurrently.
Mills v. State


In an animal cruelty conviction, the law requires that sentences arising out of same criminal offenses be prosecuted in single action and run concurrently.
Minnesota 1860-1872 Public Laws: OFFENSES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, ETC. Section 18 of Chapter 96 from Minnesota Public Statutes 1860-1872 covers the treatment of animals.  Specifically, the statute covers the punishment for cruelty to animals.
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. 3-4-9- Cruelty to Animals. Under Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians code, cruelty to animals is a Class B offense. Any person who shall kill, torture, mistreat, mutilate, injure or abandon any animal shall be guilty of an offense under this section.
Mississippi State University v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.


PETA, an animal rights group, sought disclosure of records pursuant to the Public Records Act from Mississippi State University regarding the IAMS's company care of animals used in research, which was conducted at university. After the lower court granted the request, the University and company appealed. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that substantive portions of company's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol forms were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court found that PETA failed to rebut the evidence presented by MSU and Iams that the data and information requested in the subject records constituted trade secrets and/or confidential commercial and financial information of a proprietary nature developed by MSU under contract with Iams. Therefore, the data and information requested by PETA is exempted from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act.
Mitchell v. State


The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction.
MN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things.
MN - Vehicle - M.S.A. § 97B.091. Use of motor vehicles to chase wild animals prohibited This Minnesota states that a person may not use a motor vehicle to intentionally drive, chase, run over, kill, or take a wild animal.
MO - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Missouri statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty laws. The term "animal" means every living vertebrate except a human being. The provisions of sections 578.005 to 578.023 do not apply to the care or treatment performed by a licensed veterinarian, bona fide scientific experiments, hunting, fishing, or trapping, publicly funded zoological parks, rodeo practices, and several other listed activities as described in 578.007. A person is guilty of animal neglect when he or she has custody or ownership or an animal and fails to provide adequate care, or when that person knowingly abandons an animal in any place without making provisions for its adequate care. Animal neglect and abandonment is a class C misdemeanor upon first conviction with enhancement to a class B misdemeanor for subsequent convictions. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by law, purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an animal, or, having ownership or custody of an animal, knowingly fails to provide adequate care or control which results in substantial harm to the animal. Animal abuse is a class A misdemeanor unless the defendant has previously been found guilty of animal abuse or the suffering involved is the result of torture or mutilation consciously inflicted while the animal was alive, in which case it is a class E felony.

Pages