Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 651 - 660 of 965
Titlesort descending Summary
People v. Williams In this case, defendants were convicted of felony dog fighting and felony animal cruelty. On appeal, defendants sought to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the search warrant that led to their convictions. Police officers responding to a report of a thin, loose, horse near the defendants' home entered the property in order to make reasonable attempts to secure the loose horse and determine if there was a suitable corral on the property. The officers knew there had been prior calls to the property in response to reported concerns about the conditions of horses and pit bulls on the property. Further, one officer heard puppies barking inside the home when she knocked on the door trying to contact defendants, and another officer heard a dog whining from inside the garage. There were strong odors of excessive fecal matter reasonably associated with unhealthful housing conditions. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to be concerned there was a dog in distress inside the garage and possibly in need of immediate aid, and the court found there was nothing unreasonable about one officer standing on the front driveway and simply looking through the broken window in the garage door to determine whether the dog he heard making a whining bark was in genuine distress. Nor was it unreasonable for the officers to then proceed to the back yard after having looked in the garage. As a result, the court ruled that the information the officers had justified the issuance of the search warrant, and thus the order denying the motion to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the warrant was affirmed. The defendants' judgments of conviction were also affirmed.
People v. Youngblood
Defendant was convicted of animal cruelty for keeping 92 cats in a single trailer, allowing less than one square foot of space for each cat.  The court found that the conviction


could be sustained upon proof that defendant either deprived animals of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, or subjected them to needless suffering.  Further, the court found that the defense of necessity (she was keeping the cats to save them from euthanasia at animal control) was not available under circumstances of case.
Perplexing Precedent: United States v. Stevens Confounds a Century of Supreme Court Conventionalism and Redefines the Limits of "Entertainment"


The purpose of this Note is to consider the widespread implications of United States v. Stevens. Specifically, this Note will consider the likelihood of future findings of a compelling governmental interest, the level of harm required when balancing competing interests, Congress's ability to supplement ineffective laws, and the Court's ability to recognize new categories of speech unworthy of even basic First Amendment protection.
Peru - Cruelty - Ley 30407, 2015 Ley 30407, is the statute of animal protection and welfare. It sets the guidelines for the protection of vertebrate domestic and wild animals kept in captivity and against abuse and cruelty caused directly or indirectly by humans. This law also promotes respect for the life and well-being of animals through education as well as the participation in the promotion of animal protection of entities of the public and private sector. Some of the topics that this law regulates include: responsibilities of society and the government towards animals; protection, possession and handling of animals; animal research and experimentation; and euthanasia of companion animals and wildlife kept in captivity. Ley 30407 has 36 articles in 8 chapters. As a result of its promulgation, the previous animal welfare act, together with Article 450-A of the criminal code, were repealed. Bullfighting, cockfighting and other activities declared of cultural character by authorized authority are considered exceptions to this law.
Pet Fair, Inc. v. Humane Society of Greater Miami
The owner of allegedly neglected or mistreated domestic animals that were seized by police could not be required to pay for costs of animals' care after it was determined that owner was in fact able to adequately provide for the animals, and after the owner declined to re-possess the animals. The Humane Society can require an owner to pay it costs associated with caring for an animal if the owner re-claims the animal, but not if the animal is adopted out to a third party.
Phillip v. State


Defendant was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment after entering a non-negotiated guilty plea to 14 counts of dogfighting and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. Upon motion, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence was illegal and void because all counts, which were to run concurrently, had the maximum prison sentence of five years.
Pine v. State


Mens rea in cruelty conviction may be inferred from circumstances. With regard to warrantless seizure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure when there is a need to act immediately to protect and preserve life (i.e. "emergency doctrine").
Pitts v. State


Right of appeal is only available for orders that the animal be sold at public auction. The statutory language does not extend this right to seizure orders.
Poarch Creek Band of Indians of Alabama. 8-6-31-Cruelty to Animals Under Sec. 8-6-31, cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor. A person who, without justification, knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment by actions defined in the statute commit the crime of cruelty to animals.
Porter v. DiBlasio


Nine horses were seized by a humane society due to neglect of a care taker without giving the owner, who lived in another state, notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The owner filed a section 1983 suit against the humane society, the county, a humane officer and the district attorney that alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process, conspiracy, and conversion. The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a viable claim. On appeal, the court found that the owner had two viable due process claims, but upheld the dismissal for the others.

Pages