Animal Law

Circuit court found defendant violated three provisions of a local ordinance forbidding the possession of a nuisance animal. Defendant appealed the judgment. Appellate court partially affirmed, finding trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting county’s motion to amend, trial court did not err by finding defendant violated two subsections of the municipal code, and defendant forfeited argument regarding a motion in limine for failing to make an offer of proof. Appellate court reversed trial court judgment on one subsection of the city code, finding it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (KNECHT and STEIGMANN, concurring)

(Court opinion corrected 10/13/20.) Plaintiff sued for injuries sustained when Defendants' 105-pound dog bit her, asserting claims of negligence and under Animal Control Act. Court properly granted summary judgment for Defendant on common-law negligence claim, as there is no evidence that Defendants knew or had reason to know that their dog was dangerous. Dog was in the care and control of Defendant's brother, who was house-sitting and caring for the dog at time of incident. Because Defendants lacked control over the dog during the relevant time frame, they were not subject to liability under Animal Control Act, and court properly entered summary judgment for Defendants on that claim.(McLAREN and BRIDGES, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of failing to provide humane care and treatment for, and abusing, his 10 dogs. Evidence showed that Defendant housed some dogs outside in cages without appropriate floors, and conditions were filthy. State was not required to prove that dogs suffered any physical or psychological injury. Section 3(a)(4) of the Humane Care for Anials Act is not unconstitutionally vague.  (PUCINSKI and COBBS, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that she had a property interest in her 4 coyotes at the time they were seized by the Illinois DNR. Plaintiff had a fur-bearing mammal breeder permit from 2011 to 2016, but it was lapsed at the time coyotes were seized. Pursuant to Wildlife Code, coyotes possessed without a valid permit are contraband. As Plaintiff had no legitimate claim of entitlement to the coyotes, Plaintiff had no right to a property interest protected by due process when coyotes were seized. Court thus properly denied motion for preliminary injunction.  (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of 4 counts of practicing veterinarian medicine without a valid license, 6 counts of violating an animal owner's duties, and 1 count of aggravated cruelty to a companion animal. Defendant had practiced as a veterinarian for 22 years but failed to renew her license; her license was then suspended when she resumed practicing before reinstatement. Police found her home in deplorable condition, with multiple animals and animal carcasses inside the home. In the aggravated cruelty to a companion animal count, State alleged that Defendant had performed a surgical procedure on a dog in an unsterile manner that led to the dog's death.No evidence at trial supported an inference that Defendant's conscious purpose was to kill or seriously injure the dog. Although evidence showed that Defendant clearly acted recklessly and perhaps acted knowingly, such evidence is insufficient to show that she acted with the specific intent that the death actually occur.Facts do not justify the application of the rule of presumed malice and intent. (BOIE, concurring; CATES, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)