Legal Opinion

People v. Baniqued

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 29, 2000No. C031869PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVIS, Acting P. J.

Confronting here a scene of undeniable horror, it brings to mind the cogent observation of Mark Twain that “[man] is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain.” (2 Twain [Samuel Langhome Clemens], Autobiography (1924) p. 7.) In this case we hold that a rooster or other bird falls within the statutory definition of “every dumb creature” (Pen. Code, § 599b) and thus qualifies as an “animal” for purposes of the animal cruelty statutes found at Penal Code section 597, subdivisions (a) and (b). We therefore affirm the judgments, including…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  3. People v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. People v. JenkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. People v. ElderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. People v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Imagistics International, Inc. v. Department of General ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. People v. ClayburgCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API