Shotts v. City of Madison, 2013-KM-01108-COA, 2014 WL 4347582 (Miss. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2014). Defendant was charged with animal cruelty after burning his girlfriend's dog while giving it a bath. He said it was an accident. There were no other witnesses, and the attending veterinarian testified that the dog's injuries were consistent with defendant's account. Defendant was nevertheless convicted after the county court suggested he could be guilty of animal cruelty if he had “carelessly” hurt the dog.
Instead, the appeals court found the lower court applied the wrong legal standard. The 2011 animal cruelty statute, since repealed, that applied in this case required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted maliciously. Since the prosecution failed to meet that burden, the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the defendant's conviction. Justice James dissents finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
We didn't bother to read this case below, because ALDF uses a lot of the same attorneys that HSUS and cronies use, so if there is a way to "tweak" something, they usually do it. Doesn't mean success in every case (such as saying chimps have human rights due to their cognitive ability) as animals are still considered as property in the United States.
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, 1:14-CV-00104-BLW, 2014 WL 4388158 (D. Idaho Sept. 4, 2014). In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss.
Defenders of Wildlife are consistently filing cases. They do win some.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, CV 12-1833 (ABJ), 2014 WL 4714847 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2014). In 2012, a rule transferred management of the gray wolf in Wyoming from federal control to state control. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and maintained that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to protect the species, the level of genetic exchange shown in the record did not warrant delisting, and the gray wolf was endangered within a significant portion of its range. Given the level of genetic exchange reflected in the record, the Court decided not to disturb the finding that the species had recovered, and it would not overturn the agency's determination that the species was not endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range. However, the Court concluded that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to rely on the state's nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision. The Court therefore granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part, denied it in part, and remanded the matter back to the agency.
United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn., 13-5181, 2014 WL 4637546 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2014). A private non-profit corporation that contracted with the City of Chattanooga to provide animal-welfare services, received complaints of neglect and unsanitary conditions at a mall pet store. Investigations revealed animals in unpleasant conditions, without water, and with no working air conditioner in the store. Animals were removed from the store, as were various business records, and the private, contracted non-profit began to revoke the store's pet-dealer permit. Pet store owners brought a § 1983 suit in federal district court; the Owners alleged that the removal of its animals and revocation of its pet-dealer permit without a prior hearing violated procedural due process and that the warrantless seizure of its animals and business records violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court’s entry of summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”Armstrong, 380 U.S. at 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187. The failure to provide a hearing prior to a license or permit revocation does not per se violate due process. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 65–66, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979) (holding that the summary suspension of a horse trainer's license without a prior hearing did not violate due process, but the failure to provide a timely post-suspension hearing did violate due process). But there is no dispute that never providing an opportunity to challenge a permit revocation violates due process. Thus, the revocation of Pet Supply's permit without a pre-deprivation hearing or a post-deprivation hearing violated due process.
*18 No reasonable officer could believe that revoking a permit to do business without providing any pre-deprivation or post-deprivation remedy was constitutional.
California Animal & Dog Attorneys - lawyers.law.cornell.edu
https://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyers/animal...
Legal Information InstituteCompare and research animal & dog attorneys in California on LII.- www.justia.com › Lawyer Directory › Animal & Dog Law
Compare 135 animal & dog attorneys in California on Justia. ... (888) 587-8421 Contact Information California Animal & Dog Law Lawyer. Where are you found? California Animal Law Lawyers - Lawyers.com
www.lawyers.com › Find a Lawyer by Legal Issue › Animal Law Lawyers
Find an animal law attorney in California (CA) to help with your legal issue by usingLawyers.com law firm listings and reviews.Animal Law Lawyers - Legal Information | Lawyers.com
animal-law.lawyers.com/
Find animal law legal information and resources, including law firm, lawyer and attorneylistings and reviews on Lawyers.com.Wagman, Bruce A. - Schiff Hardin LLP
www.schiffhardin.com/attorneys/attorney.../wagman-bruce...
Schiff HardinBruce Wagman focuses his practice on animal law litigation, consultation, legislative affairs ... Northern California Super Lawyers – Animal Law; Personal Injury ...Animal Pet Law Attorney California 530.359.8810
animalandpetlawattorney.blogspot.com/
Oct 4, 2014 - Animal Pet Law Attorney California 530.359.8810. Animal+Pet LawCases; Seizure,CA PC597,PC597.1,et seq, Forfeiture, alleged abuse ...Animal Lawyers and Law Firms in California (CA) - HG.org
www.hg.org/law-firms/animal-law/usa-california.html
Find Animal law offices and lawyers in California for your city. HG.org includes firms' overview, contact information, services, website, social networks, articles, ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.