Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ouderkirk v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | 2007 WL 1035093 (E.D.Mich.) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1035093 (E.D.Mich.)) | Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. |
The plaintiffs in this case own a chinchilla ranch in mid-Michigan. They filed a complaint alleging that PETA lied to them to gain access to their farm, took video footage of their farm operation, and then published an exposé on PETA's website that put the plaintiffs in an unfavorable false light. The court ultimately granted defendant-PETA's motion for summary judgment on all the issues. The court observed that the Ouderkirks gave permission for the taping in an email that makes no reference to any restriction on that consent. Further, the primary use made of the plaintiffs' likenesses by the defendant was to advocate against the chinchilla trade; thus, PETA had a right under the First Amendment to disseminate the information containing the plaintiffs' likenesses. |
Case | |
| Our Dumb Animals Vol 20 No.3 | MSPCA | Vol 20, No 3 |
This is a magazine published by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a mixture of articles, humor, poems and information, not unlike the Reader's Digest format of today. It is reflective of a softer, gentler era. |
Article | |
| Outside the Box: Expanding the Scope of Animal Law | William R. Cook | 14 Animal Law 127 (2007) |
In this Introduction to Volume 14, Issue 2 of Animal Law, the author reflects on the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, an annual professional gathering for wildlife management professionals (mostly government wildlife managers). |
Article | |
| Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer | 666 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009) | The barking of Scooby the dog, caught the attention of nearby neighbors, and the Plaintiff, Overlook Mutual Housing Corporation. Overlook established a no-pet rule for its residents with an exception for service animals. Scooby's owners (the Spencers) received a letter warning them to remove the dog from their home. In response, the Spencers obtained a letter which requested that Overlook make a reasonable accommodation for their daughter Lynsey, who needed a support dog to facilitate in her psychological treatment. Overlook did not grant the Spencer's request for accommodation and filed a Complaint against them. The Spencers then filed a counter claim and Overlook then moved for summary judgment. The court stated that pet policies have to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Based on the intent of the FHA to provide reasonable accommodation rather than public access like the ADA, HUD and the DOJ's recently revised regulations on the need for emotional support animals in HUD-assisted housing, and previous actions brought against housing providers that denied emotional support animals, this court concluded that emotional support animals can qualify as reasonable accommodations under the FHA. Further, the court held that they do not need to be individually trained like service animals. Overlook's motion for summary judgment was denied. | Case | ||
| Overview of 2008 State Animal Law Changes | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview examines the changes to state animal laws in 2008 as well as the animal-related ballot proposals that appeared in the November election. |
Article | |
| Overview of 2010 Ballot Proposals | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a summary of the ballot proposals and legislative-referred constitutional amendments from 2010. |
Article | |
| Overview of Ag-gag Laws | Alicia Prygoski | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Ag-gag laws, also known as “agricultural interference/fraud” laws, are laws designed to prohibit recording or undercover investigations at industrialized farming operations (commonly known as factory farms). |
Article | |
| Overview of Alabama Great Ape Laws | Hanna Coate | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article discusses the state laws that govern the import, possession, use, and treatment of Great Apes in Alabama. In Alabama, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons are considered “Class 1” wildlife, which means that they are among the most heavily regulated wild animals in the state. Although the possession and use of apes is heavily regulated in certain areas, such as display and exhibition, it is virtually unregulated in other areas. The following article begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. The discussion concludes with a compilation of local ordinances which govern the possession and use of apes within geographic subdivisions of the state. | Article | |
| Overview of Alabama Great Ape Laws | Hanna Coate | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article discusses the state laws that govern the import, possession, use, and treatment of Great Apes in Alabama. In Alabama, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons are considered “Class 1” wildlife, which means that they are among the most heavily regulated wild animals in the state. Although the possession and use of apes is heavily regulated in certain areas, such as display and exhibition, it is virtually unregulated in other areas. The following article begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. The discussion concludes with a compilation of local ordinances which govern the possession and use of apes within geographic subdivisions of the state. | Article | |
| Overview of Alaska Great Ape Laws | Hanna Coate | Animal Legal & Historical Center | In Alaska, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons are considered “game” animals which are regulated by the state’s Department of Fish and Game (DFG). In general, it is illegal to import and possess apes without a DFG permit.The following article begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. | Article |