Results
Displaying 51 - 60 of 6670
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Statutory Amendment Table | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This document provides a summary and table illustrating amendments to state laws in 2018. | Topic Table | |
| 2019 State Amendments | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
In 2019, many of the same animal issues appeared again in state legislature, particularly service animals and anti-cruelty laws. |
Topic Table | |
| 2020 Amendments to Laws | Rebecca Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This table reflects the substantive changes to animal-related laws in 2020. |
Topic Table | |
| 2021 Statutory Amendments Table | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This table details the animal-related legislative changes that occurred across all fifty states in 2021. Links are provided to the amended laws and a summary of the change appears in the adjacent column. | Topic Table | |
| 2022 Statutory Amendments Table | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This table details the animal-related legislative changes that occurred across all fifty states in 2022. Links are provided to the amended laws and a summary of the change appears in the adjacent column. | Topic Table | |
| 253-20-JH/22 The case of Estrellita | 253-20-JH/22 | This is the unprecedented case of Estrellita, a woolly monkey, and the first animal with the status of subject of rights in Ecuador. Estrellita was illegally taken from her habitat as a baby and sold to a family that kept her as a pet for 18 years. The authorities became aware of Estrellita after an anonymous report stating that the Plaintiff was keeping a wild animal in their home. Estrellita was seized and relocated to a nearby zoo. The owner of Estrellita filed a habeas corpus requesting that Estrellita be returned to her, as she was a family member. Sadly, Estrellita died while under the care of the authorities. Despite the family's heartfelt plea, the court denied the habeas corpus, deciding that the best course of action was to keep Estrellita in the zoo - a decision that ultimately cost her life. The Constitutional Court decided to hear the case because it considered it had questions that needed to be answered. In a 7-2 court ruling, Ecuador's Constitutional Court held that animals are subjects of rights protected by the rights of nature. (In Ecuador, nature has been granted rights under the 2008 Constitution). The court found that both the Plaintiff and the authorities had violated Estrellita's rights to life and integrity by taking her from the wild and, in the government's case, by ignoring her needs when relocating her to the zoo. The court further held that the writ of habeas corpus could be appropriate in animal cases, depending on the circumstances. Another significant outcome of this decision is that the court instructed the Ministry of Environment and the Ombudsman to draft new legislation that materializes the parameters and criteria outlined in its decision. This legislation is essential in creating a legal framework to protect animals and ensure their rights are respected. | Case | ||
| 2620-2003-HC/TC |
The appellant in this case brought a writ of habeas corpus for his pet rat against the appellee, who took possession of the rat and allegedly threatened to arrest the appellant for expressing his opinions, which were not in |
Case | |||
| 2620-2003-HC/TC |
El apelante en este caso presentó un recurso de hábeas corpus por su rata mascota contra el apelado, que tomó posesión de la rata y supuestamente amenazó con arrestar al apelante por expresar sus opiniones, que no eran favorables al apelado. |
Case | |||
| 32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property v. County of Prentiss | 808 So.2d 971 (Miss. S.C. 2002) | 808 So.2d 971 (Miss. S.C. 2002) |
While a criminal trial regarding alleged dog-fighting was pending, the Circuit Court, Prentiss County, ordered the humane euthanization of 18 of 34 seized pit bulldogs. The alleged dog owner appealed. The Supreme Court held that allegations the dogs had been trained to fight, could not be rehabilitated as pets, and posed serious threat to other animals and people, related to the "physical condition" of the dogs, as statutory basis for humane euthanization. Affirmed.
|
Case | |
| 789-22-JH, Habeas Corpus - Cuqui Brown, the sloth | 789-22-JH | This is the case of Cuqui Brown, a sloth kept as a pet by a family in Ecuador. Cuqui Brown was seized by the authorities and transferred to a zoo. Plaintiff filed a Habeas Corpus against the Ministry of the Environment, alleging that Cuqui Brown was a family member, and requested that the court order the authorities to return Cuqui Brown to the plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff alleged that her rights and the rights of Cuqui were violated based on Estrellita's case that granted animals the status of subjects of rights. The court denied the Habeas Corpus, stating that the decision in Estrellita's case does not enable individuals to keep a wild animal or to request that a wild animal be returned to their possession. Instead, the Estrellita case recognizes the rights of wild animals based on aspects like their life, integrity, and their relationship with nature, not on the well-being or attachment of the person who removes them from their habitat to keep them as pets. | Case |