Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 191 - 200 of 970
Titlesort descending Summary
Chile - Transport, animals - Decreto 30
Chimps, Inc., International Primate League, and Marguerite Gordon v. Primarily Primates, Inc.
China Case Studies: 1. Intentional Cruelty to Zoo Bears


A short case study of what happened when an individual harmed several bears at a public zoo in China.
China Case Studies: 3. Bear Bile from Caged Moon Bears


This is a short case study about the issue of using caged bears to extract bile in China.
China Case Studies: 4. Live Food for the Tigers


A short case study form China about the practice of feeding a captured animal like tiger, live goats and cows as entertainment.
China Case Studies: 5. Water Filled Meat


A case study from China about the practice of adding water to animals before they are sold, to increase weight.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah


Local ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifices under the guise of an anti-cruelty concern was an unconstitutional infringement on church's First Amendment rights because (1) ordinances were not neutral; (2) ordinances were not of general applicability; and (3) governmental interest assertedly advanced by the ordinances did not justify the targeting of religious activity.
Citizen Standing to Enforce Anti-Cruelty Laws by Obtaining Injunctions: The North Carolina Experience


North Carolina law authorizes citizen standing for the enforcement of anti-cruelty laws, thus supplementing criminal prosecution by means not used in any other state. Citizens, cities, counties, and animal welfare organizations can enforce animal cruelty laws through a civil injunction. This article explores the various amendments to North Carolina’s civil enforcement legislation and the present law’s strengths and weaknesses. The Author suggests an ideal model anti-cruelty civil remedies statute.
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State


A citizen groups filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Washington seeking a determination that the 2000 initiative 713 barring use of body-gripping traps, sodium fluoroacetate, or sodium cyanide to trap or kill mammals was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court found that appellants did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Initiative 713 violated the constitution, and thus affirmed the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion.  The court also held that the initiative was exempt from the constitutional provision prohibiting legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length.
City of Boston v. Erickson



This very short case concerns the disposition of defendant Heidi Erickson's six animals (four living and two dead) that were seized in connection with an animal cruelty case against her. After Erickson was convicted, the city withdrew its challenge to the return of the living animals and proceeded only as to the deceased ones. A single justice denied the city's petition for relief, on the condition that Erickson demonstrate “that she has made arrangements for [t]he prompt and proper disposal [of the deceased animals], which disposal also is in compliance with health codes.” Erickson challenged this order, arguing that it interfered with her property rights by requiring her to discard or destroy the deceased animals. However, this court found no abuse of discretion, where it interpreted the justice's order to mean that she must comply with all applicable health codes rather than forfeit her deceased animals.

Pages