Research Animals

Displaying 111 - 120 of 139
Titlesort descending Summary
STATE ANIMAL USE PROTECTION STATUTES: AN OVERVIEW
Students for Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) v. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of University of Oregon (IACUC)


Appeal of a circuit court decision finding a summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit where a state university student organization and other parties brought suit against the university committee that supervised animal research, including a research proposal for cranial surgery on Macaque monkeys. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had an interest in the governmental decisions of the committee, had established a denial of access related to that interest, thus had standing to bring the suit.
Taub v. State of Maryland


Maryland Court of Appeals held that animal-cruelty statute did not apply to researchers because there are certain normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable.
The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty Part II summarizes the background of the law, its enactment, and its amendments; Part III discusses the species covered, or not covered, by the AWA; Part IV considers the effectiveness and necessity of current animal testing procedures in light of growing technological advancements; Part V compares laboratory testing in other countries; Part VI explores the fates of laboratory animals no longer needed by their facilities; and Part VII offers some recommendations for improvements to the AWA.
The Humane Research and Testing Act: Advancing Science by Creating This letter examines the proposed alternatives to animals in biomedical research and the Humane Research and Testing Act (HRTA) from 2021.
THE PET THEFT ACT: CONGRESSIONAL INTENT PLOWED UNDER BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
To Save Lab Animals the Legal Way: The Right to Appeal on Permits to Perform Animal Experiments
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West


The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false. 
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West


The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to

create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.

 

In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.

 

However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.

 

This case was amended and superseded by


US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West

, 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).
Uganda - Cruelty - Chapter 220 Animal Act

Pages