Results
Displaying 4161 - 4170 of 6844
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y | 562 P.3d 63, reh'g denied (Colo., 2025) | 2025 CO 3 | This Colorado case involves the appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus proceeding. The appeal asked the Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether the liberty interests protected by the "great writ of habeas corpus" extend to nonhuman animals. Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (“NRP”) contends that the district court erred in dismissing its habeas petition because the five elephants that are the subject of the petition, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo (“the elephants”), lacked standing to seek relief via the great writ. These elderly elephants live at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (“CMZ”) and where NRP asserts they were unlawfully confined. In support of this contention, NRP submitted affidavits from several animal biologists who stated that these intelligent and complex creatures are suffering from psychological disorders and stress from being in captivity. The Zoo countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing the elephants received extraordinary care and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the elephants do not have standing to seek habeas relief. After the district court granted the motion to dismiss, this court sought to determine whether habeas corpus relief extends to nonhuman animals. The court first looked at Colorado's statutory grant of authority for habeas relief. In doing so, the court found that the statute grants "any person" the ability to seek habeas relief from illegal confinement or restraint of liberty. While "person" is not defined in the law, the court found other statutory definitions that limit "person" to mean "human being." This definition is bolstered by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "person." Since Colorado's law explicitly limits habeas corpus relief to "persons," the court was unpersuaded by NRP to expand the writ to animals based on common law interpretations. Further, the court noted that even if the statute did not say "person," it would still not be persuaded to expand the writ because no other jurisdiction has recognized "personhood" for nonhuman species, expansion would have "unintended consequences" for interactions between humans and animals, and there is no evidence the Colorado legislature ever intended to recognize animals as legal persons in the statute. This court affirmed the district court's finding that Colorado's writ of habeas corpus does not apply to nonhuman animals. | Case |
| Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. v. DeYoung Fam. Zoo, LLC | --- N.W.3d ----, 2025 WL 2957821 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2025) | This appellate proceeding concerned a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of seven chimpanzees detained at a private zoo. The central legal question was whether chimpanzees qualify as "persons" capable of possessing a right to "liberty" cognizable under the common-law writ. The court engaged in a historical analysis, concluding that the common law, which the Michigan Constitution incorporates, has consistently confined the category of "persons" to human beings for the purpose of vindicating personal liberty. The court found that animals, irrespective of their cognitive abilities, have traditionally been regarded as property under the law and are incapable of bearing the social responsibilities and legal duties inherent in personhood. The petitioner's argument for a judicial expansion of the common law to recognize animal personhood was rejected, with the court emphasizing that such a fundamental departure from established legal principles falls within the exclusive purview of the state supreme court. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. | Case | |
| Norma Oficial Mexicana Nom 051-Zoo-1995 | Nom 051-Zoo-1995 | This law lays out the general criteria for animal transportation and handling, with additional provisions based on the species. Its objective is to define the framework for animal transportation, aiming to reduce suffering throughout the entire transport process. | Statute | |
| North American Meat Institute v. Becerra | 825 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2020) | 825 Fed.Appx. 518 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2020) | The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) brought suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 brought suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (which forbids the sale of pork meat and eggs in California from producers that do not comply with its animal housing standards). NAMI alleged that Proposition 12 violated the dormant commerce clause by improperly regulating economic activity outside of California’s boundaries and substantially burdening interstate commerce. Plaintiffs acknowledged that Proposition 12 was not facially discriminatory, and that Proposition 12 did not have a discriminatory purpose, because there was a lack of evidence that the state had protectionist intent when enacting Proposition 12. The district court dismissed the case, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court. | Case |
| North Carolina v. Nance | 149 N.C. App. 734 (2002) | 562 S.E.2d 557 (N.C.App., 2002) |
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized by animal control officers without a warrant. Several days passed between when the officers first came upon the horses and when they were seized. The officers could have obtained a warrant in those days; thus, no exigent circumstances were present. |
Case |
| Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel | 808 F.2d 741 (10th Cir. 1987) | 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1248 (1987) |
After the Secretary of the Interior promulgated regulations establishing a game code regulating hunting on the reservation, the Arapahoe Tribe of Wyoming sued the Secretary and other federal officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the regulations. At issue, was a concern over the declining big game populations on the reservation and surrounding areas due to an unusually harsh winter and over-hunting. The Court of Appeals held that the government had the right to enact the game code because the rights of two tribes overlapped with regard to a limited resource, and the "[g]overnment's right extends to preventing overuse by the Arapahoe of their shared right when that overuse endangers the resource and threatens to divest the Shoshone of their right." Where there exists a risk of extinction, the government may enact interim game code measures to prevent the threat when the tribes fail to enact their own game codes. |
Case |
| Northern Ireland - Animal Welfare - Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 CHAPTER 16 | An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare in Northern Ireland. Activities that constitute offences include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending an animal fight. Activities lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the normal course of fishing, hunting and (hare) coursing are exempt from the 2011 Act. Hare coursing events have since been banned in separate legislation. | Statute | |
| Northern Ireland - Farm animal - Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 | 2012 No. 156 | Regulations placing duties on persons responsible for farmed animals, to include: the conditions under which animals are kept; and specific conditions for laying hens, reared meat chickens, caves, cattle, pigs and rabbits. | Statute | |
| Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 | 1995 No. 380 | These Regulations prohibit the deliberate taking, injuring, killing, disturbing, possession, or trading of certain wild species (as scheduled) in Northern Ireland. It is also an offence to take the nests or eggs of wild birds. | Statute | |
| Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 Chapter 15 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals, and prohibits facilitating, attending or participating in hare coursing events. | Statute |