Rene Stutzman Sentinel Staff Writer
February 15, 2008
SANFORD - A man has filed suit against the city of Winter Springs, accusing two of its police officers of mistaking his home for someone else's, hauling him outdoors without clothes and shooting dead his Rottweiler. The suit, filed Thursday, seeks unspecified damages.
Read the rest of the article...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Legislative ripple effect of horse slaughter litigation
In true American fashion of "where there's a buck to be made, someone will find a way to make it"... the closure of the last horse slaughter plant in the U.S. (see below) apparently has not ended the slaughter of U.S. horses for food consumption. And a federal ban on transporting horses to slaughter in double-decker trailers apparently wasn't enough to stop that practice, either.
After a double-decker trailer crammed with 59 horses crashed and overturned in northern Illinois in late October, the Illinois legislature has introduced H.B. 4162, a measure that would ban the double-decker transport of horses altogether. Entrepreneurs are reportedly getting around the federal ban by transporting the horses double-decker to facilities near the Canadian or Mexican border, unloading them for a day or two, then transporting the animals in a single-decker trailer across the border for slaughter, so, in the words of Margaret van Dijk, general counsel for the Illinois Department of Agriculture, "they are technically in compliance with the statute."
Wisconsin also has a measure pending, WI SB 262, to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
After a double-decker trailer crammed with 59 horses crashed and overturned in northern Illinois in late October, the Illinois legislature has introduced H.B. 4162, a measure that would ban the double-decker transport of horses altogether. Entrepreneurs are reportedly getting around the federal ban by transporting the horses double-decker to facilities near the Canadian or Mexican border, unloading them for a day or two, then transporting the animals in a single-decker trailer across the border for slaughter, so, in the words of Margaret van Dijk, general counsel for the Illinois Department of Agriculture, "they are technically in compliance with the statute."
Wisconsin also has a measure pending, WI SB 262, to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Fight ring to family life
Volunteers aid dogs seized from Vick's property during raid
By Cheryl Wittenauer ASSOCIATED PRESS
In a world of mostly bad news, here's just a warm and fuzzy story of Michael Vick's former dogs adjusting to their new lives...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-dog_slider_bdjan27,0,7482699.story
By Cheryl Wittenauer ASSOCIATED PRESS
In a world of mostly bad news, here's just a warm and fuzzy story of Michael Vick's former dogs adjusting to their new lives...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-dog_slider_bdjan27,0,7482699.story
Friday, January 25, 2008
Schumacher Furs must pay animal rights activists' legal fees
By Associated Press
from KATU.com
In a vindication of free speech, a Portland judge orders a furrier to pay nearly $97,000 in legal fees to the activists that it unsuccessfully sued in an effort to block weekly protests in front of its store...
http://www.katu.com/news/local/14444957.html
from KATU.com
In a vindication of free speech, a Portland judge orders a furrier to pay nearly $97,000 in legal fees to the activists that it unsuccessfully sued in an effort to block weekly protests in front of its store...
http://www.katu.com/news/local/14444957.html
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Lizard Slaying a Test for Illinois Animal Law
Domestic turmoil in a Kane County family is exposing a little-known provision in Illinois' animal protection laws.
A West Dundee woman is accused of stabbing two of her husband's lizards. One lizard died, the other recovered. Kane County is charging her with aggravated animal cruelty for hurting "a companion animal." That could bring between one and three years in jail.
Her lawyer says the lizards are not companion animals; they're just not like cats or dogs.
But animal law attorney Amy Breyer says that will be a tough sell in court. She's not involved in the case, but offers the example of cats. If a cat is wild...
BREYER: That's not going to be a companion animal under Illinois law, but you take a cat that lives with a family, where the family feeds the animal everyday, the animal sits on the couch and watches TV with them. This is a companion animal and the law will treat it as such.
Breyer says many animals can qualify as a companion animals, even lizards.
The Kane County lizard cruelty case goes to court next month.
Copyright 2008, Chicago Public Radio
Click here to listen to this story
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Dog owner sues Chicago Park District for electrocution of dog, electrical shock and dog bites suffered by owner
From "Today's top suit"on 01/02/08 in www.courtbriefs.com:
Case Number: 2007L14450 Filed: December 30, 2007
Laura Mercer vs. The Chicago Park District, a municipal corporation
Summary:
The Plaintiff seeks damages for the death by electrocution of her dog while walking through Grant Park in Chicago, as well as electrical shock and dog bites she herself suffered during the incident. Plaintiff Laura Mercer sues The Chicago Park District, a municipal corporation.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Austin, Tex. On February 17, 2007, she owned a roughly 9-year-old 60-pound neutered Labrador-mixed-breed dog named Smokey. She had owned the dog since 1997. The dog, according to the Plaintiff, had no history of biting or any aggressive behavior.
On February 17, 2007, the Plaintiff was in Chicago with her dog, and at approximately 5:30 p.m. took Smokey for a walk through the Grant Park area, specifically on the path across the pedestrian footpath north of the stairs at 11th Street and south of 8th Street, across from the Hilton hotel.
They walked along a wet, slushy path that had been shoveled from a recent snow fall. While walking, the Plaintiff observed Smokey start to yelp in a manner she had never heard before, and to lift up one leg and begin hopping and jumping repeatedly. Smokey began thrashing and appeared to be having a seizure.
The Plaintiff reached down to try to figure out what was wrong with her dog, and to remove him from whatever on the ground was causing his apparent discomfort. Smokey then bit the Plaintiff on her right hand, and held so firmly that she had to pry him off with her left hand.
Smokey then bit the Plaintiff repeatedly on her hands, left leg, and foot. She observed Smokey fall to the ground, writhe, and then stop moving. She got down into the slushy surface on her hands and knees near Smokey, and then felt her fingers tingle, realizing that a strong electric current was moving up her hands into her arms and up her knees into her thighs. She states that she realized that Smokey had been electrocuted.
She was able to lift her exposed flesh from the electric current but was unable to remove Smokey from the wet, electrified area. She was subsequently taken to a hospital, where she was treated for three days due to the shocks she received from the electric current, as well as for the deep animal bites she had received.
The Complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that there is a metal grate or access panel at the site where Smokey and the Plaintiff received the electric shock.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendant was negligent in failing to discover the existence of the stray electric current and its character of not being reasonably safe, in failing to establish a reasonably adequate inspection system to detect the stray electric current, and in failing to maintain or operate "such a system with due care."
As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff claims, she suffered bite wounds to her hands, left leg and foot, which still cause her lingering stiffness and pain in her hands, as well as loss of endurance to her hand muscles. She also underwent an inconclusive test for live or kidney damage from the electric shock.
The Plaintiff further contends that the incident caused her extreme anguish and distress, resulting in her having to restart psychotherapy and various anti-depressants originally prescribed for her due to a martial separation, as well as to begin taking anti-anxiety medications specifically prescribed due to the trauma of observing Smokey's unexpected, visibly painful death by electrocutions. The Plaintiff also states that she developed agoraphobia (fear of leaving the house) following the incident.
Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $50,000, along with an award of costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008 Law Bulletin Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
Page printed from: http://www.courtbriefs.com
Visit www.courtbriefs.com for information on how to subscribe.
Case Number: 2007L14450 Filed: December 30, 2007
Laura Mercer vs. The Chicago Park District, a municipal corporation
Summary:
The Plaintiff seeks damages for the death by electrocution of her dog while walking through Grant Park in Chicago, as well as electrical shock and dog bites she herself suffered during the incident. Plaintiff Laura Mercer sues The Chicago Park District, a municipal corporation.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Austin, Tex. On February 17, 2007, she owned a roughly 9-year-old 60-pound neutered Labrador-mixed-breed dog named Smokey. She had owned the dog since 1997. The dog, according to the Plaintiff, had no history of biting or any aggressive behavior.
On February 17, 2007, the Plaintiff was in Chicago with her dog, and at approximately 5:30 p.m. took Smokey for a walk through the Grant Park area, specifically on the path across the pedestrian footpath north of the stairs at 11th Street and south of 8th Street, across from the Hilton hotel.
They walked along a wet, slushy path that had been shoveled from a recent snow fall. While walking, the Plaintiff observed Smokey start to yelp in a manner she had never heard before, and to lift up one leg and begin hopping and jumping repeatedly. Smokey began thrashing and appeared to be having a seizure.
The Plaintiff reached down to try to figure out what was wrong with her dog, and to remove him from whatever on the ground was causing his apparent discomfort. Smokey then bit the Plaintiff on her right hand, and held so firmly that she had to pry him off with her left hand.
Smokey then bit the Plaintiff repeatedly on her hands, left leg, and foot. She observed Smokey fall to the ground, writhe, and then stop moving. She got down into the slushy surface on her hands and knees near Smokey, and then felt her fingers tingle, realizing that a strong electric current was moving up her hands into her arms and up her knees into her thighs. She states that she realized that Smokey had been electrocuted.
She was able to lift her exposed flesh from the electric current but was unable to remove Smokey from the wet, electrified area. She was subsequently taken to a hospital, where she was treated for three days due to the shocks she received from the electric current, as well as for the deep animal bites she had received.
The Complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that there is a metal grate or access panel at the site where Smokey and the Plaintiff received the electric shock.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendant was negligent in failing to discover the existence of the stray electric current and its character of not being reasonably safe, in failing to establish a reasonably adequate inspection system to detect the stray electric current, and in failing to maintain or operate "such a system with due care."
As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff claims, she suffered bite wounds to her hands, left leg and foot, which still cause her lingering stiffness and pain in her hands, as well as loss of endurance to her hand muscles. She also underwent an inconclusive test for live or kidney damage from the electric shock.
The Plaintiff further contends that the incident caused her extreme anguish and distress, resulting in her having to restart psychotherapy and various anti-depressants originally prescribed for her due to a martial separation, as well as to begin taking anti-anxiety medications specifically prescribed due to the trauma of observing Smokey's unexpected, visibly painful death by electrocutions. The Plaintiff also states that she developed agoraphobia (fear of leaving the house) following the incident.
Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $50,000, along with an award of costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008 Law Bulletin Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.
Page printed from: http://www.courtbriefs.com
Visit www.courtbriefs.com for information on how to subscribe.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
ALDF settles hoarding lawsuit
Congratulations to the Animal Legal Defense Fund for settling its suit against Raleigh animal hoarder Janie Conyers! The settlement provides, among other things, for the release of more than 100 dogs from the cramped, filthy conditions they suffered and bars Conyers from owning more dogs in the future. Read more on ALDF's website.
If this all sounds familiar, that may be because last spring ALDF won an even bigger victory in North Carolina. That's when that state's Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment ordering the removal of more than 350 abused and neglected dogs from the home of Robert and Barbara Woodley in Sanford, N.C.
If this all sounds familiar, that may be because last spring ALDF won an even bigger victory in North Carolina. That's when that state's Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment ordering the removal of more than 350 abused and neglected dogs from the home of Robert and Barbara Woodley in Sanford, N.C.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
City pays $27,000 to man who says cop shot his dog
chicagotribune.com
Tribune staff report
September 23, 2007
City officials have agreed to pay $27,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a West Side man who said police shot and killed his dog last year while chasing a suspect.Calvin Hale alleged that a police officer ran into his yard in the 5200 block of West Race Avenue and stumbled on his 10-year-old Akita, Lady.The officer shot the dog and continued the chase, Hale said in a lawsuit filed in February in Cook County Circuit Court.
"I think Lady, at the end of the day, was worth more than $27,000 to him, but there are practical benefits to resolving the litigation," Hale's attorney, Amy Breyer, said Friday.City officials acknowledged the settlement, but declined to comment further on Friday. They admit no wrongdoing in the settlement, which was reached Wednesday.
The incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2006. Hale said his dog had no history of biting or bad behavior.
Breyer said she hoped the settlement would put the city and others on notice that "you can't do what happened here without there being any repercussions."Breyer is one of a small number of lawyers who specialize in animal-related cases and sometimes seek to expand the reach of animal law.Lawsuits over injuries to animals have begun to be taken more seriously, Breyer said.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Tribune staff report
September 23, 2007
City officials have agreed to pay $27,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a West Side man who said police shot and killed his dog last year while chasing a suspect.Calvin Hale alleged that a police officer ran into his yard in the 5200 block of West Race Avenue and stumbled on his 10-year-old Akita, Lady.The officer shot the dog and continued the chase, Hale said in a lawsuit filed in February in Cook County Circuit Court.
"I think Lady, at the end of the day, was worth more than $27,000 to him, but there are practical benefits to resolving the litigation," Hale's attorney, Amy Breyer, said Friday.City officials acknowledged the settlement, but declined to comment further on Friday. They admit no wrongdoing in the settlement, which was reached Wednesday.
The incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2006. Hale said his dog had no history of biting or bad behavior.
Breyer said she hoped the settlement would put the city and others on notice that "you can't do what happened here without there being any repercussions."Breyer is one of a small number of lawyers who specialize in animal-related cases and sometimes seek to expand the reach of animal law.Lawsuits over injuries to animals have begun to be taken more seriously, Breyer said.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Monday, August 06, 2007
7th Circuit shuts last horseslaughter plant in U.S.
In a decisive victory for animal advocates, the Seventh Circuit closed the Cavel horseslaughter plant in Illinois permanently when it upheld a recent amendment to the Illinois Illinois Horse Meat Act, 225 ILCS 635 et seq., that resulted in the highly controversial horse slaughter ban. The ban made it unlawful for any person in the state to either slaughter, 635/1.5(a), or import, export, sell, buy, give away, hold or accept “any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption.” 635/1.5(b).
In Cavel International, Inc., v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit found that the ban was not discriminatory against interstate commerce,Id. Id. Id. Id.
Notably, the opinion was written by Judge Posner, an outspoken – and even published – critic on the subject of animal rights. See e.g., http://www.slate.com/id/110101 (debate with Peter Singer) and "Animal Rights: Legal, Philosophical, and Pragmatic Perspectives," in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions 51, Martha C. Nussbaum and Cass R. Sunstein, eds. (2004). Nonetheless, beyond finding that “[s]tates have a legitimate interest in prolonging the lives of animals that their population happens to like” he mused in dicta that a state “is also permitted to take one step at a time on a road toward the humane treatment of our fellow animals.”Id.
In Cavel International, Inc., v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit found that the ban was not discriminatory against interstate commerce,
Notably, the opinion was written by Judge Posner, an outspoken – and even published – critic on the subject of animal rights. See e.g., http://www.slate.com/id/110101 (debate with Peter Singer) and "Animal Rights: Legal, Philosophical, and Pragmatic Perspectives," in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions 51, Martha C. Nussbaum and Cass R. Sunstein, eds. (2004). Nonetheless, beyond finding that “[s]tates have a legitimate interest in prolonging the lives of animals that their population happens to like” he mused in dicta that a state “is also permitted to take one step at a time on a road toward the humane treatment of our fellow animals.”
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Resident's suit says cops shot his dog during chase
February 22, 2007
CHICAGO --
A West Side man who says police shot and killed his dog last year while chasing a suspect filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the city and two police officers.Calvin Hale, 68, alleges that he was in his back yard in the 5200 block of West Race Avenue when a police officer ran into the yard and stumbled on his 10-year-old Akita, Lady."The next I know, I heard a shot, and she started to holler," Hale said Wednesday. "I told [the police officer] `You shot my dog,' and he just kept running."The incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2006, Hale said.Hale said his dog had no history of biting or bad behavior.
The lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeks unspecified damages of more than $50,000.City officials declined to comment Wednesday.
Hale's attorney, Amy Breyer of Chicago, is one of a small number of lawyers who specialize in animal-related cases and sometimes seek to expand the reach of animal law.Breyer said police could not shoot a child in the yard without justification and "my feeling is it's not acceptable with non-human family members" either.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Animal Rights Activist Awarded $251K in Euthanasia Case
BY JOHN MORENO GONZALES
john.gonzales@newsday.com
February 14, 2007, 8:41 PM EST
A federal jury awarded an East End animal rights' activist a $251,000 judgment Wednesday in a case that also compelled Southampton town to re-examine its euthanasia policy for stray cats and dogs.
Patricia Lynch said the town unfairly ended her work as a volunteer at its animal shelter after she used a radio show and newspaper column to speak out against putting the animals to sleep. The end of her work at the shelter, her attorney argued in U.S. District Court in Central Islip, made it impossible for her to continue rescuing the animals and place them in local homes.
"For seven years I have been trying to save the lives of adoptable animals who were euthanized," an excited Lynch said Wednesday after the verdict. "Today was a vindication of that work."
Southampton's attorney, Jeltje DeJong of Smithtown, had argued before U.S. Judge Arthur D. Spatt that because Lynch was a volunteer, the town had no legal obligation to retain her at the shelter. DeJong and town officials could not be reached for comment after the verdict.
But Spatt found that just like other municipal volunteers, such as volunteer firemen, Lynch did have First Amendment rights to free speech and due process. Two days after filing her case against the town in September 2005, Lynch said, she was forced to give up her work at the shelter.
Before her suit against the town, the shelter had no formal policy on the disposal of dogs. Since 2000, it had put about 200 dogs to sleep, town officials said.
Lynch said that since the filing of her suit the town has sharply reduced that rate by retraining kennel workers to more carefully evaluate if a dog can be saved.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
john.gonzales@newsday.com
February 14, 2007, 8:41 PM EST
A federal jury awarded an East End animal rights' activist a $251,000 judgment Wednesday in a case that also compelled Southampton town to re-examine its euthanasia policy for stray cats and dogs.
Patricia Lynch said the town unfairly ended her work as a volunteer at its animal shelter after she used a radio show and newspaper column to speak out against putting the animals to sleep. The end of her work at the shelter, her attorney argued in U.S. District Court in Central Islip, made it impossible for her to continue rescuing the animals and place them in local homes.
"For seven years I have been trying to save the lives of adoptable animals who were euthanized," an excited Lynch said Wednesday after the verdict. "Today was a vindication of that work."
Southampton's attorney, Jeltje DeJong of Smithtown, had argued before U.S. Judge Arthur D. Spatt that because Lynch was a volunteer, the town had no legal obligation to retain her at the shelter. DeJong and town officials could not be reached for comment after the verdict.
But Spatt found that just like other municipal volunteers, such as volunteer firemen, Lynch did have First Amendment rights to free speech and due process. Two days after filing her case against the town in September 2005, Lynch said, she was forced to give up her work at the shelter.
Before her suit against the town, the shelter had no formal policy on the disposal of dogs. Since 2000, it had put about 200 dogs to sleep, town officials said.
Lynch said that since the filing of her suit the town has sharply reduced that rate by retraining kennel workers to more carefully evaluate if a dog can be saved.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Texas Appellate Court Rules Against Slaughterhouses
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently relied on a 1949 Texas law in holding that the two horse slaughterhouses located in Texas may not continue slaughtering horses for human consumption. The law makes it an offense to “sell, offer for sale, or exhibit for sale horsemeat as food for human consumption.” The law also prohibits transferring the meat to a person one knows or should know intends to use the meat for one of the prohibited activities. Since the ruling, numerous airliners including American Airlines and Delta Airlines have refused to continue shipping horsemeat from the Texas slaughterhouses to Europe or Japan where the meat is sold. This places a burden on slaughterhouse owners Beltex Corporation and Dallas Crown, Inc., who plan to continue slaughtering horses until their rehearing before the Fifth Circuit is resolved. Meanwhile, the only other slaughterhouse in the nation, located in DeKalb, Illinois, is also coming under pressure. Owned by Cavel International, the slaughterhouse burned down in 2002 and was reopened in 2004. Since then, it has failed to meet DeKalb District sanitary standards and has been fined at least $25,000. Currently, the District has put the fines into escrow pending Cavel’s development of a new refining system, but many hope to see the operation permanently shut down.
For more information, see:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16512985.htm
For more information, see:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16512985.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
