Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers | 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir., 2005) | 2005 WL 525269 (9th Cir.) |
An environmental group brought an action against the U.S. Army Corps Engineers and BP for violating both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Defendants counter-claimed that the environmental group lacked standing and that the claim was barred by laches. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment, reversed summary judgment against the environmental group, and remanded the case for consideration of the environmental group's request for injunctive relief. |
Case |
| 789-22-JH, Habeas Corpus - Cuqui Brown, the sloth | 789-22-JH | This is the case of Cuqui Brown, a sloth kept as a pet by a family in Ecuador. Cuqui Brown was seized by the authorities and transferred to a zoo. Plaintiff filed a Habeas Corpus against the Ministry of the Environment, alleging that Cuqui Brown was a family member, and requested that the court order the authorities to return Cuqui Brown to the plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff alleged that her rights and the rights of Cuqui were violated based on Estrellita's case that granted animals the status of subjects of rights. The court denied the Habeas Corpus, stating that the decision in Estrellita's case does not enable individuals to keep a wild animal or to request that a wild animal be returned to their possession. Instead, the Estrellita case recognizes the rights of wild animals based on aspects like their life, integrity, and their relationship with nature, not on the well-being or attachment of the person who removes them from their habitat to keep them as pets. | Case | |
| Mayfield v. Bethards | 826 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 3397503 (10th Cir. June 20, 2016) | In this case, plaintiffs sued defendant, Officer Bethards, for unlawfully killing their pet dog Majka. Plaintiffs' dogs were lying in plaintiffs' unfenced front yard when the officers entered the yard and then followed the dogs to the back of the house, eventually killing one of the dogs. The plaintiffs argued that by unlawfully killing their dog, Officer Bethards violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment by entering the property without a warrant with the intention of killing the dogs. Officer Bethards moved to have the complaint dismissed for a failure to state a claim and the court denied this motion. Specifically, Officer Bethards argued that this was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment only applies to “effects,” which does not include dogs. The court disagreed, finding that Fourth Amendment protection for pet dogs is a clearly established right. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiffs asserted facts sufficient to show a violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and the district court's order denying Deputy Bethards's motion to dismiss was affirmed. | Case |
| US - AWA - 2002 Public Law 107-171 | 2002 PL 107-171 | 116 Stat. 491 | Enacted January 23, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act changed the definition of "animal" in the Animal Welfare Act to specifically exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. The law also addressed animal fighting ventures by making it a misdemeanor to ship a bird in interstate commerce for fighting purposes, or to sponsor to exhibit a bird in a fight that had been shipped for such purposes. | Statute |
| US - Cruelty - § 48. Animal crush videos | 18 U.S.C.A. § 48 | This federal law was amended in November 2019 to expand its prohibition on "animal crush videos" to "crushing" that affects interstate or foreign commerce or occurs within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. "Crushing" is defined as "actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is purposely crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 and including conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242." Exceptions exist for things like veterinary care, animal husbandry, animal slaughter, hunting and fishing, medical or scientific research, personal protection, and animal euthanasia. Violation incurs a fine or imprisonment for not more than 7 years or both fine and imprisonment. | Statute | |
| AR - Hunting - Title 15. Arkansas Hunting Heritage Protection Act | A.C.A. § 15-41-301 - 304 | AR ST § 15-41-301 to 304 | This Arkansas statute affirms that hunting is an important recreational and economic activity in the state. | Statute |
| Resolución 063/2018 - Mexico | Resolución 063/2018 - Mexico | The Human Rights Commission of the state of Guerrero, Mexico (Comisión de los Derechos Humanos del Estado de Guerrero) is the administrative authority responsible for overseeing human rights violations and issuing public recommendations and complaints when such violations are attributed to state and municipal authorities and public employees (See Comisión de los Derechos Humanos del Estado de Guerrero). In response to a complaint filed by members of the civil association “Responsible Citizen,” a professor, and students from the Master’s in Law program at the Autonomous University of Guerrero, the Commission addressed concerns against the director of the Zoochilpan Zoo. The complaint alleged violations of the Rights of Nature (recognized in Guerrero’s constitution since 2014) and the right to a healthy environment due to subpar conditions in which the zoo housed its animals. The complainants requested an inspection of the zoo to corroborate the conditions in which the animals were kept, which negatively affected their physical and mental health. During the inspection, the Commission observed animals of diverse species cohabiting, a pond with dirty water, and animals living in small enclosures. In addition, the President of the Institute for Handling and Conservation of Biodiversity stated that the zoo did not meet the standards of the Association of Zoos, breeders, and aquariums (AZCARM). Recommendations were issued, citing substandard conditions such as underweight animals, dirty enclosures, and improper feeder placement. As a result of these inspections, the Commission concluded that the animals were housed in inadequate conditions, violating Art 43, fractions I, XI, and XVII of the state anti-cruelty law. Moreover, it noted that these conditions could impact the human rights to a healthy environment for both visitors and zoo staff. The Commission’s recommendations are as follows: (1) The Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources of the State is advised to develop and implement the recommendations issued by the President of the Institute for the Management and Conservation of Biodiversity and the General Attorney for Environmental Protection to guarantee the respectful and dignified treatment of the exhibited animals, their protection, and health, and to provide a healthy environment to humans; (2) The Commission recommended ongoing training for the zoo’s staff to cultivate a culture of protection and the dignified, respectful treatment of exhibited animals. This measure also aligns with the protection of the Rights of Nature, acknowledging animals as integral parts of it; (3) The Zoo Director is advised to implement both legal and administrative measures to ensure their animals’ dignified and respectful treatment. This included developing a budget that allocates funds for creating the necessary infrastructure, providing adequate food, and establishing optimal health conditions. These measures would allow wildlife to live in conditions similar to those of their species. | Case | |
| Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. v. Breheny | 197 N.E.3d 921, reargument denied, 39 N.Y.3d 967, 200 N.E.3d 121 (2022) | No. 52, 176 N.Y.S.3d 533, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 03859, 2022 WL 2122141 (N.Y., June 14, 2022) | This New York case centers on a petition of habeas corpus for an elephant named "Happy" who is housed at the Bronx Zoo. Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project is a not-for-profit corporation with a mission of seeking to establish that “at least some nonhuman animals” are “legal persons” entitled to fundamental rights, including “bodily integrity and bodily liberty.” In 2018, petitioner commenced this habeas proceeding in Supreme Court against respondents James J. Breheny, Director of the Bronx Zoo, and the Wildlife Conservation Society, the organization that operates the Zoo. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus “on behalf of Happy,” an Asian elephant that petitioner claimed was unlawfully confined at the Zoo in violation of her right to bodily liberty. Happy has resided at the Bronx Zoo for the last 45 years and has been held in captivity since she was approximately one year old. Petitioners request that she be transferred to an “appropriate sanctuary" where she could potentially be integrated with other elephants. To support its request, petitioner proffered affidavits from several experts specializing in elephant study and care attesting to the general characteristics of elephants. The Zoo respondents opposed petitioner's application and requested dismissal of the petition for lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action. Specifically, respondents argued that there was no legal basis for habeas relief and that Happy's living conditions comply with all relevant laws and accepted standards of care. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground “that animals are not ‘persons’ entitled to rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus” and that habeas relief is not available for an animal. On petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, reasoning that “the writ of habeas corpus is limited to human beings.” While the court acknowledged that the law recognizes that animals are not mere "things," and existing animal protection laws underscore this conclusion, the scope of habeas corpus does not include animals. The court lastly noted that " this case has garnered extraordinary interest from amici curiae and the public . . . Though beyond the purview of the courts, we appreciate that the desire and ability of our community to engage in a continuing dialogue regarding the protection and welfare of nonhuman animals is an essential characteristic of our humanity. Such dialogue, however, should be directed to the legislature." As such, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed | Case |
| People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture | 60 F.Supp.3d 14 (D.D.C. 2014) | On December 16, 2013, this Court issued an Opinion that dismissed a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals alleging that the United States Department of Agriculture had unlawfully failed to implement the Animal Welfare Act with respect to birds. The Court found that the actions PETA sought to compel USDA to take—promulgating bird-specific regulations and enforcing the AWA against bird abusers—were committed to the agency's discretion by law. On January 13, 2014, PETA moved for reconsideration of the second part of that decision. PETA also asked, in the alternative, for leave to amend its Complaint. The government opposed both requests. Because the Court stands by its initial conclusions, and because leave to amend was not allowed at this juncture, it denied PETA's Motion. This case was appealed, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir., 2015). For a prior District Court case, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) | Case | |
| CA - Cruelty - Part 11. Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | West's Ann. Cal. Corp. Code § 14500 - 14505 | CA CORP § 14500 - 14505 | This section of California laws concerns the formation and powers of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | Statute |