ADVERTISEMENTS

Give The Bark -- The Ultimate Dog Magazine



Introducing the New Havahart Wireless Custom-Shape Dog Fence

Fine Leather Dog Collars For All Breeds

Heartspeak message cards


Mixed-breed DNA test to find out the breeds that make up you dog.

Bulldog Leash Hook

Healthy Dog Treats

Free Shipping - Pet Medication


SitStay, Good for Your Dog Supplies

books on dogs

Tag: appeals court

Little Lola’s free ride

A couple agrees to care for a friend’s Chihuahua for the weekend.

The dog’s owner doesn’t pick her up when the weekend’s over; in fact, she doesn’t try to reclaim the Chihuahua, named Lola,  for 10 months.

What’s the couple who cared for the dog owed?

According to the Nebraska Court of Appeals — the third court to hear the case — absolutely nothing.

The saga of Lola, a four-pound, black-and-tan Chihuahua, began Aug. 22, 2007, when Heather Linville of Lincoln asked her friends Travis Derr and Natasha Combs to care for her dog for the weekend, according to the Omaha World-Herald. Linville’s new apartment complex didn’t allow dogs, and she explained she needed time to make arrangements for her pet.

When, 10 months later, Linville asked to get Lola back, Derr and Combs said they wanted to keep the dog.

Linville summoned police, and the dog was returned to her, but Derr and Combs filed a small-claims court case, asking to be paid $2,700 for boarding the animal for 320 days.

A Lancaster County judge ruled in favor of Derr and Combs, a decision later upheld by a district judge. But the appeals court overturned the $2,700 judgment in a 3-0 ruling — proving, in my view, three heads aren’t better than one. What Lola’s owner did sounds to me like abandonment, pure and simple.

The court said Derr and Combs did not ask for compensation when they agreed to keep the dog for the weekend. They should have notified Linville if they were no longer willing to keep Lola for free, the panel said. The court said the couple was entitled only to reimbursement for a $152.98 veterinarian’s bill.

Dogfighting videos: Should they be illegal?

Should it be a crime to sell, own or distribute videos portraying dog fighting or other acts of animal cruelty?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up that question, the Baltimore Sun reports.

While all 50 states have laws against animal cruelty — and while Congress 10 years ago made it illegal to sell or possess photos or videos of animals being maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed — the question has arisen again because of an appeals court ruling last year.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia declared then that the rarely used law was unconstitutional on the grounds it violated free speech. The judges said the First Amendment protects depictions of illegal activity with only few exceptions, child pornography being one.

The ruling overturned the conviction of Robert J. Stevens, a Virginia man who was serving three years in prison for selling videos of pit bulls fighting and viciously attacking other animals. Stevens advertised the videos in Sporting Dog Journal,  an underground journal that reports on illegal dog fights.

Stevens sold the videos to federal agents in Pittsburgh in 2003, and his prosecution was the first under the federal law that made it a crime to sell such videos.

Government lawyers appealed, urging the Supreme Court  to revive the law. “Graphic depictions of torture and maiming of animals … have little or no expressive content or redeeming societal value, and Congress has compelling reasons for prohibiting them,” they said in their appeal. Animal cruelty has “no place in a civilized society,” and the law should punish those who profit from it, they said.

There are only a few exceptions to this rule, the judges noted. One is child pornography. It is always illegal to sell or own pornography that features children. The appeals court said it was unwilling to create a new category of expression that is unprotected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court voted to hear the government’s appeal this fall.