Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 860 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (W.D. Wash. 2012) rev'd, 708 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) and rev'd, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) | The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission. | Case | |
| UK - Cruelty - Protection of Animals Act 1911 | 1911 Ch 27 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The main piece of anti-cruelty legislation applicable to England and Wales. The law was replaced by the 2006 Amendments to this Act. |
Statute | |
| UNITED STATES of America v. Robert J. v. STEVENS, Appellant |
The Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, the federal law that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty, is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This brief supports the United States' petition for certiorari. Cert. was granted in April of 2009 by the U.S. Supreme Court. |
Pleading | ||
| PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILDLIFE IN NEED AND WILDLIFE IN DEED, INC. | 476 F. Supp. 3d 765 (S.D. Ind. 2020) | 2020 WL 4448481 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2020) | Wildlife in Need and Wildlife in Deed, Inc. ("WIN") is a zoo located in Charlestown, Indiana owned by Timothy Stark and Melissa Lane that houses exotic and endangered animals, including Big Cats like lions, tigers, and hybrids. WIN exhibits Big Cats to the public through hands-on encounters called “Tiger Baby Playtime” so Stark routinely declaws Big Cat cubs in his possession so he can handle them easier, not for any medical reason. Stark admitted to declawing "about a dozen cubs" in 2016 alone. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA") filed this lawsuit against Stark and Lane and their WIN zoo alleging that the defendants harassed and wounded Big Cats in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, this case asks whether certain animal exhibitors have "taken" various species of Big Cats by declawing them and prematurely separating them from their mothers to use in hands-on, public interactions. By granting PETA's motion for Partial Summary Judgment, this court concludes that such conduct constitutes a "taking" and thus violates the ESA. The court noted that PETA's motion for preliminary injunction was granted in 2017, restraining defendant from declawing any Big Cats absent a medical necessity supported by a veterinarian's opinion. Then, on February 12, 2018, the court preliminarily enjoined the WIN Defendants from declawing their Big Cats, prematurely separating Big Cat Cubs from their mothers, and using Cubs in Tiger Baby Playtime. The court previously concluded that declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA at the preliminary injunction stage, and now found "there is no good reason to disturb that conclusion." Thus, the court again concludes the WIN Defendants' declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA: it “harasses” Big Cats by creating a likelihood of significantly disrupting normal behavioral patterns; it “harms” Big Cats by actually injuring them; and it “wounds” Big Cats by inflicting a physical injury. In addition to granting the permanent injunction, the court also directed PETA to file a motion to appoint a special master and identify a reputable wildlife sanctuary for the animals housed at WIN. | Case |
| Facility Dogs/Courthouse Support Dogs | As of 2024, twenty (20) states have laws that allow the use of facility/courthouse dogs in some legal proceedings. | State map | ||
| MO - Initiatives - Proposition B (dog breeders) | Proposition B (2010) |
This 2010 ballot measure asked whether Missouri law shall be amended to: require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and create a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty” for any violations. It was passed in 2010 by 51.6% of voters. |
Statute | |
| WV - Hunting - § 20-2-2a. Interference with hunters, trappers and fishermen | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-2a | WV ST § 20-2-2a | This law reflects West Virginia's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person may not willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, fishing or trapping. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or imprisonment for 10 - 100 days, or both. Subsequent violations within two years of any prior violation result in a fine of up to $1000 and imprisonment for up to one year, or both. A violator is also liable to the person for damages. | Statute |
| AU - Wildlife - Nature Conservation Act 2002 (TAS) | Nature Conservation Act 2002 No. 63 of 2002 31.12.2002 |
An Act to make provision with respect to the conservation and protection of the fauna, flora and geological diversity of the State, to provide for the declaration of national parks and other reserved land and for related purposes. |
Statute | |
| KS - Maize - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | MAIZE, KS., CITY CODE, §§ 2-401 - 2-420 (2003) |
In Maize, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog unless the dog was registered on the date of publication of this article. A registered dog is subject to requirements, such as the uses of a leash and muzzle if not confined and “Beware of Dog” signs. Dogs that are a subject of a violation may be seized, impounded, and even killed, if necessary. A violation may result in a $200 to $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days, as well as removal of the dog from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo | 785 F.Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio, 1991) |
This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA. Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA. |
Case |