text: LOS ANGELES (CN) — The California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a ruling that ordered improved conditions for elephants at Los Angeles Zoo, a setback for animal advocates who say the intelligent animals are being mistreated. 
   
   In August 2007, Los Angeles resident Aaron Leider sued L.A. Zoo Director John Lewis and the City of Los Angeles, challenging the expansion of the zoo’s elephant exhibit. Leider claimed the zoo subjected elephants to “cruel, abusive and illegal treatment” through use of chains, drugs, bullhooks and electric shocks. 
   
   In 2012, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Segal stopped short of ruling that the zoo’s treatment was inhumane but said officials need to take better care of the elephants. He ordered the city to stop using bullhooks or electric shocks and to exercise the elephants regularly. 
   
   A divided appeals court affirmed. 
   
   City leaders have recently highlighted conditions at the zoo, with Councilman Paul Koretz calling for the zoo to move an Asian elephant named Billy to a sanctuary. Zoo officials objected, saying that keepers are looking after the elephants. In his motion, Koretz relied on Segal’s findings in the bench trial. 
   
   Leider’s complaint said the keeper had shocked Billy and that the animal was bobbing his head – an indication, according to advocates, that he is stressed and isolated. 
   
   But the California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the appeals court. 
   
   Justice Carol Corrigan rejected the theory in Leider’s taxpayer action: that the alleged criminal mistreatment of the animals was an unlawful use of public money. 
   
   Under California law, a taxpayer action cannot be used to enforce violations of criminal law, so an injunction against the city cannot stand, according to the unanimous court. 
   
   “Here, the trial court found that the city and its zoo director had violated penal code statutes proscribing animal abuse, but it provided them neither the right to a jury trial nor the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Corrigan wrote. “Moreover, Leider was permitted to exercise the discretion reserved for the district attorney with regard to enforcement of the criminal law. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal’s judgment cannot stand.” 
   
   Leider’s attorney David Casselman called the ruling “extremely disappointing,” and said evidence showed that elephants had died prematurely because of conditions at the zoo. 
   
   “Having gone all the way through trial and proving the need for injunctive relief under recognized statutory authority, it was very surprising that the Supreme Court would change the rules and effectively ignore the statutory scheme that has existed for decades,” Casselman said in an interview. 
   
   He said he hoped for a retrial before a jury. 
   
   “If it’s possible, I intend to pursue this through the Legislature, or anywhere else, to protect these elephants who are suffering dying prematurely,” he said. 
   
   The zoo praised the high court’s decision. 
   
   “Today’s California Supreme Court decision validates what Angelenos already know: the LA Zoo and its staff provides the highest level of care for our elephants and all our animals,” LA Zoo spokeswoman April Spurlock wrote in an email. “Our elephants live in one of the best – and largest – elephant habitats in North America at a state-of-the-art facility that has tremendous resources, a dedicated staff, and provides top-quality health care.” 
   
   The city did not respond to a request for comment. 
   
   The court remanded the case for further proceedings. 
   
   Like this: Like Loading... ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites.
target: – For years, the Los Angeles Zoo has been under a court order requiring it to exercise its three elephants on soft ground and not use electric shocks or barbed sticks on them. On Thursday, that court order was overturned in a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court that animal activists are decrying. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued the injunction against the zoo in 2012 in response to a taxpayer lawsuit alleging animal cruelty. But in what the Los Angeles Times calls a "highly technical ruling" overturning the injunction, the state's highest court said a taxpayer lawsuit (which uses civil law rules) can't be used to address criminal conduct. The taxpayer lawsuit began in 2007 when an LA resident sued over what he said was abusive treatment of the elephants, also including the use of chains and drugs, Courthouse News Service reports. A lawyer who worked on the case, for free, for more than five years says he'll attempt to find another way to get a similar injunction against the zoo, or request that the state legislature overturn the ruling. "I thought we had done something here to move the ball forward and instead the Supreme Court has allowed the zoo to take a step into the Dark Ages," he says. The Supreme Court explained in its ruling that by obtaining the injunction in such a way, the court did not allow the zoo to have a jury trial or the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The barbed sticks known as bull hooks have since been banned entirely in California, and for its part, the zoo says that it has never used and will never use them or electric shocks as disciplinary tools for its elephants, and that it will continue to follow the court order despite it being overturned.