Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua | 304 F.Supp.2d 1245 (D. Hawaii, 2003) |
Condominium resident filed a complaint alleging the housing authority violated the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act by failing to waive the "no pets" as a reasonable accommodation for his handicap. The court held that where the primary handicap is mental or emotional in nature, an animal "must be peculiarly suited to ameliorate the unique problems of the mentally disabled," and granted the housing authority's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the housing authority's failure to make a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. |
Case | ||
| Prior Animal Law Cases of the Month | This page provides past cases highlighted on the front page of the website as recent cases. The month and year of publication are listed. Short summaries and links to the cases are provided. | Basic page | |||
| Prior Cases of the Month 2010 to 2016 | This document contains cases of the month from 2010 - 2016. | Policy | |||
| Privatizing the Patriot Act: The Criminalization of Environmental and Animal Protectionists as Terrorists | Ethan Carson Eddy | 22 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 261 (Fall, 2005) |
This Article describes the model Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act its permutations currently pending in state legislatures, its proponents, and their motivations. It further explains the legal and rhetorical parallels between the Model Act and the USA Patriot Act. The Article predicts that courts will find the bills' constraints on speech to be undeniably content-based and without a sufficiently compelling state interest. In the end, the Article concludes by explaining how the bills exploit the USA Patriot Act's anti-terrorism rhetoric, and reveal a concerted corporate strategy to manipulate the term “terrorist” and capitalize on its potency, in an anticompetitive effort to secure protectionism from the adverse economic effects of criticism, protests, and boycotts. |
Article | |
| Problems and Prospects for the Pelagic Driftnet | Robert Eisenbud | 12 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 473 (1985) |
A direct impact of the pelagic driftnet is the incidental taking of marine mammals. Pelagic driftnet fisheries are conducted by vessels from Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. The incidental taking of marine mammals within the Fishery Conservation Zone by the Japanese fleet is subject to regulation under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
Article | |
| Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 Jaguar Killing , 2015 - Ecuador | Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 | This case regards a defendant who shot and killed a jaguar, which was an endangered species, allegedly in the name of defense and necessity. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not require defense or true necessity, that he had to prove that he did not kill the jaguar, and that in circumstances of uncertainty, the court should hold in favor of nature (in dubio pro natura). The defendant was not a hunter and was not actively hunting the jaguar. Ecuadorian environmental law states that anyone who “hunts” a legally protected species will be punished with incarceration. The court discussed concepts of Ecuadorian constitutional law, rights of nature, and the juxtaposition of human beings working within the habitats of wild, and potentially predatory, animals. After a detailed discussion, the court accepted the appeal and unanimously agreed to punish the defendant with six months' prison time. | Case | ||
| Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 matanza de un jaguar, 2015 - Ecuador | Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 | Este caso se refiere a un acusado que disparó y mató a un jaguar, que era una especie en peligro de extinción, supuestamente en defensa propia y por necesidad. El demandante alegó que el demandado no requería defensa propia o verdadera necesidad, que tenía que probar que no había matado al jaguar y que, en circunstancias de incertidumbre, el tribunal debía fallar a favor de la naturaleza (in dubio pro natura). El acusado no era cazador y no estaba cazando activamente al jaguar. La legislación medioambiental ecuatoriana establece que cualquier persona que "cace" una especie legalmente protegida será castigada con penas de prisión. El tribunal debatió conceptos del derecho constitucional ecuatoriano, los derechos de la naturaleza y la yuxtaposición de seres humanos que trabajan en el hábitat de animales salvajes y potencialmente depredadores. Tras un debate detallado, el tribunal aceptó el recurso y acordó por unanimidad castigar al acusado con seis meses de prisión. | Case | ||
| Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Department of Navy | 725 F. Supp. 475 (1989) |
The Progressive Animal Welfare Shelter ("PAWS") and fourteen other environmental and animal rights groups brought this action for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's plan to "deploy" Atlantic bottlenose dolphins at the Bangor submarine base. |
Case | ||
| Project on American Animal Welfare Legislation (Spain) | Oriol Caudevilla Parellada | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper examines US animal welfare legislation as viewed from a student in Spain. The paper concludes that while the US has some of the most progressive legislation, there are still topics that need to be addressed. |
Article | |
| Pron v. Tymshan | 79 Misc. 3d 1235(A), 192 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2023) | No. CV-011255-22NY, 79 Misc. 3d 1235(A), 192 N.Y.S.3d 917, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50809(U), 2023 WL 4940439 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct., July 21, 2023) | This case was filed by the previous owner (plaintiff) of an Abyssinian cat named Murchik, who was seeking to recover possession of the cat. Plaintiff took care of the cat for several years, but eventually lost their job and their housing, and needed to give the cat to a friend (defendant) who agreed to house the cat while plaintiff was living in a shelter. Plaintiff and defendant eventually disagreed over who was the rightful owner of the cat, with plaintiff insisting that defendant was temporarily watching the cat and defendant insisting that they were the rightful owner of the cat. Plaintiff filed this case to repossess the cat. The court considered that New York law traditionally treated companion animals as personal property, and the party with the superior possessory right to the animal would be awarded the animal. However, the court was moving towards a "best for all concerned" standard, which would consider factors such as why each party would benefit from possession of the pet, and under whose possession the cat would have a better chance of thriving. The court found that plaintiff had the superior possessory right in the cat, since plaintiff was the original purchaser of the cat and there was no evidence that plaintiff intended to give the cat to defendant permanently. The court then looked to the other factors, and found that since plaintiff's living situation had stabilized, both parties were equally capable of ensuring the cat would thrive in their care. However, since plaintiff had cared for the cat for over five years, and defendant had cared for the cat for under a year, plaintiff had a slight advantage in showing they could care for the cat. Therefore, the court awarded possession of the cat to plaintiff. | Case |