Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Wellness Action v. Soccer Wearhouse Inc | This complaint filed by plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy asks defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. to comply with existing California law. More specifically, it asks defendants to adhere to Penal Code section 653o (hereafter Section 653o), which prohibits the commercial importation, possession with intent to sell, and sale of products made with kangaroo parts. Through investigation and research, plaintiffs contend that defendants openly sell soccer cleats made of kangaroo leather, or “k-leather,” throughout California at defendants' various retail stores. According to plaintiffs, these stores make no attempt to hide the fact that these products contain kangaroo parts. Plaintiffs seek both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. and its representatives, co-conspirators, and all persons acting in concert with defendant or on its behalf, from selling or offering for sale kangaroo leather shoes. | Pleading | |||
| Animal Welfare: Its Place in Legislation | Congressman Christopher Shays | 12 Animal L. 1 (2005) |
Comments by Congressman Christopher Shays: Animal welfare will continue to be a challenge. By advocating animal welfare legislation at the federal level, states, the private sector, and individuals can follow clearer, more humane guideline regarding the safety of all animals. As co-chairs of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, Congressman Lantos and I will continue to educate lawmakers about the importance of animal welfare initiatives at all levels. |
Article | |
| Animal welfare protection laws in the world | Sabine Brels | This is a index of laws around the world relating to animal welfare. | Article | ||
| Animal Welfare Protection at European level | Sabine Brels | This is an index of the European Union's Animal Welfare laws. | Article | ||
| Animal Welfare Oversight Works on an Honor System That is Too Easy to Dupe The Death of a Laboratory Monkey Named Ovechkin at Augusta University | These documents pertain to a whistle blower case concerning the January 7, 2014 death of a monkey named Ovechkin in my federally funded research program (funded by the National Science Foundation NSF) at Augusta University (formerly known as Georgia Regents University or GRU) in Augusta, GA. | Policy | |||
| ANIMAL WELFARE LAW IN CANADA AND EUROPE | 6 Animal L. 23 (2000) | The idea that animals are entities that deserve protection, irrespective of their utility to man, is firmly grounded in the Enlightenment. The principle that a creature's need for considerate treatment did not depend on the possession of a soul or the ability to reason, but on the capacity to feel pain was formulated and debated at that time. The debate continues today-Canada is in the midst of examining its own ethical, philosophical and legal beliefs about animal welfare and cruelty. This article examines the current state of animal welfare and cruelty laws and recent attempts through federal legislation to modernize the animal welfare provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code. Comparisons are drawn with European animal welfare and cruelty laws, which tend to be more concerned with an animal's welfare than Canadian laws, which tend to be more concerned with the economic interests of humans. | Article | ||
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 588 F.Supp.2d 110, (D.Me.,2008) | 2008 WL 5248171 (D.Me.) |
After Defendant, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (“DIFW”) adopted an emergency rule imposing limitations on the use of Conibear traps in response to a preliminary injunction issued by the Court after the death of a Canada lynx, a threatened species, Plaintiffs moved for an emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the DIFW from allowing the use of Conibear traps for the remainder of the State’s trapping season after the death of an additional Canada lynx, caused by an illegally set Conibear trap. The United States District Court, D. Maine denied Plaintiffs’ motion, finding that Plaintiffs failed to show a causal connection between the State’s licensure and regulation of the trapping and any Endangered Species Act violations resulting from the lynx’s death. |
Case | |
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 665 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.Me., 2009) | 2009 WL 3403128 (D.Me.) |
Plaintiffs in this case filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the commencement of the early coyote and fox trapping season in the state of Maine. Plaintiffs claim that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW)Commissioner had violated the ESA by allowing trapping activities that “take” Canada lynx, a threatened species. The DIFW stated that the Court has already addressed a motion for preliminary injunction and an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, with no change to circumstances. In denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Further, the Court found that the circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. |
Case | |
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 623 F.3d 19 (C.A.1 (Me.), 2010). | 2010 WL 4104633 (C.A.1 (Me.)). |
Animal welfare organizations sued the State of Maine under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop the authorization of trapping activity that affected Canada lynx. The Court of Appeals held that such organizations had standing to sue, but that the District Court did not err in its refusal to grant a permanent injunction banning foothold traps or other relief. |
Case | |
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Kreps | 561 F.2d 1002 (1977) | 183 U.S. App. D.C. 109 (1977) |
These appeals arise from a complaint filed in the District Court challenging a decision by the Government appellees to waive the moratorium imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) [FN1] so as to permit importation into the United States from South Africa of baby fur sealskins. We reverse, holding that appellants do have standing and that the Government's decision to waive the ban on importing baby fur sealskins violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
Case |