Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 69
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gregg and Linda Schumacher, and Gregg Schumacher Furs, LLC dba as Schumacher Furs and Outerwear, Plaintiffs v. City of Portland, | In this Opinion, the judge granted the defendants a total of $96,870.85 in attorneys fees. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Schumachers for $ 6.6 million dollars against the City of Portland and the named defendants seeking damages for alleged illegal protest activities in front of their fur store. The defendants all prevailed on their Motion to Strike. The court observed that awarding of attorney fees is mandatory under Oregon law when a party prevails in an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Thus, the issue at hand was the amount of the attorney fees. The court went through the factors under Oregon law in analyzing the reasonableness of the requested attorney fees. When examining each factor, the court determined that the evidence either was in favor of defendants or was neutral. Notably, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims against defendants were not objectively reasonable because the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence that the prevailing defendants did anything illegal. | Pleading | ||
| Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter | Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4623943 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2015) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund, and various other organizations and individuals, challenge Idaho Code § 18–7042 as unconstitutional. Section 18-7042 criminalizes undercover investigations of agricultural production facilities. ALDF alleges that § 18–7042 has both the purpose and effect of stifling public debate about modern agriculture and raises two substantive constitutional challenges against the State: (1) violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; and (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first found that § 18–7042 is both content and viewpoint based, and thus, must survive the highest level of scrutiny. The Court held that the law does not survive strict scrutiny because it "would contravene strong First Amendment values to say the State has a compelling interest in affording these heavily regulated facilities extra protection from public scrutiny." Even if the interests in property and privacy of these industries is compelling, the law is not narrowly tailored as it restricts more speech than necessary and poses a "particularly serious threat to whistleblowers' free speech rights." Finally, the Court found that the law also violated the Equal Protection clause because the law was spurred by an improper animus toward animal welfare groups, furthers no legitimate or rational purpose, and classifies activities protected by the First Amendment based on content. ALDF's motion for summary judgment was granted. | Case | |
| SD - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 40-38. Protection of Animal Facilities | S D C L § 40-38-1 - 5 | SD ST § 40-38-1 - 5 | This chapter comprises South Dakota's animal enterprise interference laws. Under the section, it is illegal for a person to intentionally damage or destroy an animal facility, an animal, or property in or on the animal facility; exercise control over the animal facility or an animal located therein; enter the animal facility with the intent to commit prohibited acts; enter an animal facility and remain concealed with the intent to commit prohibited acts; or intentionally release an animal on an animal facility. Violation is a misdemeanor of varying degrees if the damaged property value is less than $1,000 and a Class 4 felony if above $1,000. Any person who violates subdivisions 40-38-2(2) to (5), inclusive, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. | Statute |
| AL - Ecoterrorism - Article 6A. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-150 - 158 | AL ST § 13A-11-150 to 158 | This article is known as the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. Under the Act, it is unlawful for any person to intentionally release, steal, destroy, or otherwise cause loss of any animal or crop from an animal or crop facility without the consent of the owner. Other illegal actions include vandalizing obtaining access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing acts not authorized by the facility, and possession of records obtained by theft or deception without authorization of the facility. Violation results in a Class C felony if the loss $250 or more or a Class A misdemeanor if the loss is less $250. | Statute |
| WY - Ecoterrorism - § 6-3-414. Trespassing to Unlawfully Collect Resource Data | W. S. 1977 § 6-3-414 | WY ST § 6-3-414 | This statute prohibits trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data. Collecting resource data is done by entering onto open land without an ownership interest or permission to collect information or photograph resource data (including animal species). Violation of this law is punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and/or a $1,000 fine for the first offense, and imprisonment from ten days to a year and/or a $5,000 fine for subsequent offenses. | Statute |
| OH - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2923. Conspiracy, Attempt, and Complicity; Weapons Control. Corrupt Activity. | R.C. § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | OH ST § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | This Ohio law define "animal or ecological terrorism" as the commission of any felony that involves causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of another, the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing serious physical harm to property and that involves an intent to obstruct, impede, or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity, from mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering, or processing natural resources, or from being lawfully present in or on an animal facility or research facility. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa, 2018) | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 | Plaintiffs, a collection of local and national non-profit organizations brought this action alleging that Iowa Code § 717A.3A, which criminalizes agrigcultural facility fraud by either obtaining access to an agricultural facility on false pretenses or making a false statement or false representation in regard to the application or agreement to be employed by an agricultural facility, impeded their ability to advocate for their respective causes. Some of the non-profit organizations listed as plaintiffs, engaged in undercover investigations where investigators serve as employees at argricultural facilities to gather information about the inner workings of slaughterhouses and other facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional on its face becuase it violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Discrict Court determined that the plaintiffs have standing to make their claim and have an injury sufficient to suppor their standing. The defendants sought a motion to dismiss. The District Court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the First Amendment claim and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the Equal Protection claim. | Case |
| CA - Zoo - § 602.13. Entering animal enclosure at zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit; punishment; exceptions; other prosec | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 602.13 | CA PENAL § 602.13 | This law makes it an infraction for a person to enter into an animal enclosure at a zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit if that facility is licensed or permitted to display animals and if it posts signs prohibiting entrance into the animal enclosures. | Statute |
| WA - Ecoterrorism - 4.24.570. Acts against animals in research or educational facilities | West's RCWA 4.24.570 - 580 | WA ST 4.24.570 - 580 | These Washington sections concern interference with animal research or educational facilities as well as facilities that keep animals for agricultural or veterinary purposes. Both sections provide that any person or organization that plans or assists in the development of a plan to commit an intentional tort described in the laws is liable for damages to the same extent as a person who has committed the tort. However, membership in a liable organization does not in itself establish the member's liability under this subsection. Section 4.24.580 allows an individual employed with an animal facility to obtain injunctive relief if he or she has reason to believe that he or she may be injured. This includes obtaining an injunction to prevent harassment. | Statute |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, SHY 38, INC. & HOPE SANCTUARY, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA KELLY & DEREK SCHMIDT, Defendants | Slip Copy, No. CV 18-2657-KHV, 2020 WL 362626 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2020) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), Center for Food Safety (“CFS”), Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary are interest groups that aim to protect and advocate for animals and the environment. These interest groups filed suit on December 4, 2018 against the Governor and Attorney General of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protect Act was unconstitutional. The Act made it a crime to damage or destroy an animal facility or an animal, exercise control over an animal facility or animal from a facility, take photos or videos at an animal facility that that is not open to the public, and remain at an animal facility against the owner’s wishes. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ALDF desired to conduct an undercover investigation in Kansas but refrained from doing so out of fear of criminal prosecution under the Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Act violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be subject to criminal prosecution under subsection (a) of K.S.A. 47-1827, the ALDF investigator had to cause physical damage to an animal or the animal facility or its property. The Plaintiffs did not allege that the ALDF investigator intended to cause such physical damage so the ALDF investigator was not at risk of criminal prosecution under the provision and, therefore, ALDF did not demonstrate standing to challenge subsection (a). ALDF alleged sufficient injury to support standing to challenge subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act. CFS, Shy 38, and Hope Sanctuary also had standing to challenge those subsections. The Court found that subsections (b), (c), and (d) regulated speech rather than conduct and was content-based rather than neutral-based. The Court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their claim that subsections (b), (c), and (d) violated the First Amendment. The Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their lack of standing claim for subsection (a) and K.S.A. 47-1828. | Case |