In Ammon v. Welty, the Ammon family sued their town’s dog warden, Robert Brewer, for wrongly and outrageously killing their dog Hair Bear. The dog was impounded after the family’s neighbor found and Hair Bear trespassing and Brewer euthanized the dog by shooting him in the head before the required 7-day waiting period expired. What I find problematic about this case is that Brewer was deemed to have acted without malice even though the dog was killed before the full week was up. In my mind, even if he had no knowledge of who the owners were because the dog had no tag, his actions still robbed the Ammons family of the opportunity to reclaim their dog. So, even if his actions were not outrageous in the sense that he shot their dog in front of them, I feel he still should have been found somewhat liable for causing them suffering. However, the Ammons lost their claim for damages because the “loss of consortium” only covers family members and a dog is considered “personal property.” In turn, the jury found that they failed to make a valid claim and the issue of Brewer’s immunity became “moot.” Is there no other way that the Ammons could have stated their claim to show that Brewer exacerbated the situation by not waiting the full time? Also, the neighbor’s part in this case is ignored, but it seems that the neighbor knew the dog and should have informed Brewer of the owners. Are they not in any way guilty for the dog’s death under the law? 

In Celinksi v. State the defendant is charged with animal abuse after pleading not guilty. There was circumstantial evidence proving that it was true. The defendant did not like his girlfriend's cats, which was motive. One day, the girlfriend left for a class and when she returned she found her cats sick and foaming at the mouth. Veterinarians ran blood tests and found that the cats had ingested acetaminaphin, deadly for cats. Not only was is peculiar that both cats had supposedly "accidently" ingested the poison, but it was also strange that the pills were never found, and that the cats voluntarily ate a dose large enough to kill them even after the supply of an antidote.

Not only was the defendant charged with poisoning the cats, but there is also circumstantial proof that he burned the cats in the microwave. When the girlfriend opened the microwave door she found an unbearable stench of burnt hair, and there was visible hair on the side of the microwave. The cats paws were also substantially burnt, and when she had returned the previous day she had found incense burning as if to mask the odor of burnt hair.

In this tragic case, both cats died the following day. All evidence points to what the defendant denies occurs and so the jury decided he was rightfully guilty.
 

http://www.northjerseyinjurylawblog.com/?p=12

http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causny415nys2d182.htm

      This case is significant in that it sets an important precedent in the treatment and protection of companion animals but also raises some confusion in regards to their legal status. By claiming that pets are more than "pieces of personal property," and that they "occupy a special place somewhere in between a person and a piece of personal property," they undermine Posner's argument that animals may be best protected if treated as property. Is the court suggesting that companion animals have rights of their own, or merely that stronger anti-cruelty laws for these animals be in place? One further issue this case raises is that the court fails to find intrinsic value in companion animals and instead focuses solely on the importance of pets in terms of their benefits to humans. 

State vs. Schott is a case brought against a rancher in Nebraska. Following a blizzard in late November of 1983, there were severaly complaints about visible cow carcasses in Schott's pastures. Upon investigation, police found 9 dead cows and only one alive, although extremely emaciated and with only a frozen pond as a water source. No action was taken until a fourth visit to the farm, after which a search warrant was used to search the farm. 40 dead cows and many dead hogs were found without bedding, water, or food and with the few live hogs feeding on carcasses to survive. Upon investigation of several veterinarians, all noted the animals had empty stomachs and concluded the animals had died of a combination of malnutrition, starvation, dehydration and effects of the lack of care.

              Schott pleaded not guilty and claimed the bad weather prevented him from properly caring for his animals for a few days. He was found guilty and appealed his case. Upon appeal, he was still found guilty of intentionally neglecting his livestock but his sentence was lessened. For both counts, he was ordered to serve 30 days in prison, but the sentences were allowed to be served concurrently after appeal. He also had to pay several fines. This case is interesting in that it addresses the wellbeing of livestock, not companion animals. The state and court, although it took several complaints, eventually took the issue of the dead livestock seriously enough convict Schott.

 http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causar290ark278.htm

 In Ash vs. State, Mrs. Hook appealed her arrest for her involvement in dog fighting on the grounds that she was not present when the police raided her home in the middle of a pitbull fight. All of the observers/participants, with the exclusion of her twelve year old son who was video-taping the fight, were arrested on spot. When she arrived home Mrs. Hook was arrested as well.

Mrs. Hook denied knowing that dog fighting was illegal in Arkansas, and denied knowing anything about any dog fights having ever occurred in her home despite the fact that the garage had been modified into a dog fighting ring complete with a pit conforming to the regulations of dog fighting (as outlined in the rules which the police found in the garage cabinet).

The question in court was whether or not Mrs. Hook "promoted" dog fighting, and because she knew her husband fought dogs in the past, knew he had a kennel of pit bulls and a garage complete with a pit, and knew the visitors who came brought pit bulls with them, saw no problem with dog fighting in general, and fed/washed the dogs, it was found that she was guilty of promoting dog fighting.