Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong v. United States | 5 F.3d 905 (1993) |
The appeal in this case does not contest the denial of a permit to conduct dolphin feedings cruises. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees is that the Secretary of Commerce has no authority to consider feeding to be a form of harassment or to regulate it. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs-appellees and found it clearly reasonable to restrict or prohibit the feeding of dolphins as a potential hazard to them. |
Case | ||
| Student Choice Laws (Dissection in Classroom Laws) | This map illustrates the eleven (11) states with "student choice" laws. The District of Columbia also has a provision, which can be found here. These laws give K-12 students the ability to opt-out of classroom activities involving animal dissection or animal harm. While the laws differ from state to state, they generally allow students to refuse to participate in instructional exercises (both observation and participation) that involve harm or destruction to dead animals (and most laws also prohibit vivisection on higher vertebrate animals). Students who decline to participate must usually be offered alternative education projects and are protected from any discrimination based on their refusal to participate in animal dissection or harm. Those states that do not have laws on student choice may have formalized education policies that allow students to opt-out of classroom dissection activities. For more on these polices, see the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). The majority of states do not have laws or formal policies allowing students or their parents to refuse animal dissection. | State map | |||
| Students for Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) v. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of University of Oregon (IACUC) | 833 P.2d 337 (1992) | 113 Or.App. 523 (1992) |
Appeal of a circuit court decision finding a summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit where a state university student organization and other parties brought suit against the university committee that supervised animal research, including a research proposal for cranial surgery on Macaque monkeys. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had an interest in the governmental decisions of the committee, had established a denial of access related to that interest, thus had standing to bring the suit. |
Case | |
| Sturgeon v. Frost | 872 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017) | 2017 WL 4341742 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017) | In this case, Sturgeon sought to use his hovercraft in a National Preserve to reach moose hunting grounds. Sturgeon brought action against the National Park Service (NPS), challenging NPS’s enforcement of a regulation banning operation of hovercrafts on a river that partially fell within a federal preservation area in Alaska. Alaskan law permits the use of hovercraft, NPS regulations do not; Sturgeon argued that Park Service regulations did not apply because the river was owned by the State of Alaska. Sturgeon sought both declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the Park Service from enforcing its hovercraft ban. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that regulation preventing use of hovercraft in federally managed conservation areas applied to the river in the National Preserve. While the hovercraft ban excludes "non-federally owned lands and waters" within National Park System boundaries, this court found that the waterways at issue in this case were within navigable public lands based on established precedent. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants was affirmed. | Case | |
| Subverting Justice: An Indictment Of The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act | Kimberly E. McCoy | 14 Animal Law 53 (2007) |
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) creates yet another obstacle for the animal advocacy movement. This article explores the reasons behind the AETA’s enactment and its implications for those who advocate on behalf of animals. The author notes the AETA targets individuals based solely on their political ideology and can deter these individuals from exercising their right to free speech due to the threat of being permanently branded as a terrorist. It is this infringement on First Amendment rights, coupled with the AETA’s overbreadth and vagueness, that lead the author to conclude the AETA is unconstitutional. The author also notes the many social policy flaws within the AETA and finds that the AETA is unnecessary, as existing laws cover every crime encompassed in its language. These defects lead the author to call for the AETA’s repeal and to suggest that individuals look to the judiciary for change. |
Article | |
| SuiÁa | impetraram este HABEAS CORPUS REPRESSIVO, em favor da chimpanzÈ "SuiÁa" (nome cientifico anthropopithecus troglodytes), macaca que se encontra enjaulada no Parque Zoobot‚nico Get˙lio Vargas (Jardim ZoolÛgico de Salvador), situado na Av. Ademar de Barros | Case | |||
| Suica - Habeas Corpus | Official Diary for October 4th 2005 |
First case to consider that a chimpanzee might be a legal person to come before the court under a petition for Habeas Corpus. |
Case | ||
| Sullivan v. Ringland | 376 A.2d 130 (N.H. 1977) | 117 N.H. 596 (1977) | A New Hampshire husband and wife owned their dog jointly when they divorced. The husband planned to take care of the dog while the wife relocated. Instead, he gave the dog away to a friend with a young son. The court held that the wife’s replevin action was not available against the donee of a cotenant. | Case | |
| Summary of 2008 Animal-Related Ballot Measures | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview provides a summary of the animal-related ballots measures presented to voters in 2008. Links to the text of the ballot measures are provided. |
Article | |
| Summary of all Federal Animal Protection Statutes | Henry Cohen | This report contains brief summaries of federal animal protection statutes, listed alphabetically. It does not include treaties, although it does include statutes enacted to implement treaties. It includes statutes concerning animals that are not entirely, or not at all, animal protection statutes. For example, it includes a statute authorizing the eradication of predators, because one of the statute’s purposes is to protect domestic and “game” animals; and it includes statutes to conserve fish, although their ultimate purpose may not be for the fishes’ benefit. It also includes statutes that allow the disabled to use service animals, and even includes statutes aimed at acts of animal rights advocates (the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the Recreational Hunting Safety and Preservation Act of 1994). | Article |