Case Details

Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA

Trade: Related Cases

Case Name Citation Summary
Born Free USA v. Norton   278 F. Supp 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003)   The zoo sought to import wild elephants from a foreign country, but advocates contended that the officials did not follow CITES properly for the import. The court held that the advocates failed to show a likelihood of success to warrant preliminary injunctive relief, since no overall detriment to the species was shown.  
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth   177 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (2001)  

Environmental groups challenge implementations of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act ("IDCPA") which amended the MMPA and revised the criteria for banning tuna imports.

 
Diamond v. Chakrabarty   447 U.S. 303 (1980)   In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States asserts that patent protection may exist for "anything under the sun," so long as it is created by man.  This has permitted genetically engineered animals to be patentable subject matter in the United States.  For more information on patent protection in the United States, see the Patent Act.   
U.S. v. Bengis   631 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2011)   After two applications to seek compensation for South Africa were denied, the United States appealed the two orders and the 2nd Circuit held that South Africa (1) had a property interest in rock lobsters unlawfully harvested from its waters and (2) was a victim under the MVRA and VWPA. The 2nd Circuit therefore held that restitution was owed to South Africa and the case was remanded for the district court to calculate restitution.  
United States v. Bengis   2006 WL 3735654 (S.D. N.Y. 2006)   Defendants were caught illegally over-fishing off the coast of South Africa and selling the fish in the United States, in violation of the Lacey Act. The United States Government could not seek compensation for South Africa under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act because the fish were not property belonging to South Africa. However, the United States Government may be able to seek restitution for the South African Government under the discretionary Victim and Witness Protection Act. Opinion Vacated and Remanded by: U.S. v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir., 2011).  
Viva! v. Adidas   63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 (Cal., 2007)   Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.  The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law.   

Back to top