Research Animals

Displaying 61 - 70 of 139
Titlesort descending Summary
LEE ROACH AND ROACH LABORATORIES, INC.
Company which produces antiserum for medical diagnostic tests by injecting rabbits and other live animals with antigens and then extracting their blood is research facility within meaning of Act.
Lesser v. Epsy
Owner had a rabbitry, and the rabbits were sold for scientific research.

 

Inspection of the rabbitry without a warrant occurred, and Owner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated.

 

Search without a warrant was appropriate because any deficiencies could have been easily concealed if notice of a search was provided to the Owner.

 
Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals.
Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. (in Hebrew) After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals.
Longhi v. APHIS


APHIS was unsuccessful in asserting that an applicant who is part of one license as a partnership can not apply for another as a corporation.
MA - Cambridge - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.12: Care and Use of Laboratory Animals)


In Cambridge, Massachusetts, research institutions that perform experiments on animals must do so in conformity with all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, as well as maintain or establish an autonomous animal care and use committee with the power to disapprove or restrict research, experiments or regarding the care and use of laboratory animals. This ordinance also establishes a Commissioner of Laboratory Animals (CLA) for the purpose of overseeing research institutions and their committees. Penalties for violating these provisions are also provided.
MA - Ecoterrorism - § 104B. Research animals; unauthorized removal This Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to enter any premises in which animals are being housed or used in research by a research institution and, without authority, cause damage and/or trespass.
Marino v. University of Florida


The petitioner in this Florida case sought records for 33 non-human primates whose captivity was documented by a USDA report. The University of Florida redacted certain portions of the records to obscure the physical housing location of the primates. The University contends that the information was confidential and exempt under Florida law as part of its "Security Plan." On appeal, this court first noted that under the Florida Public Records Act, all public documents are subject to public disclosure unless specifically legislatively exempted without considering public policy questions. The court reversed and remanded the case with instructions to release the records without redaction.
Maximizing Scientific Integrity in Environmental Regulations: The Need for Congress to Provide Guidance When Scientific Methods Are Inadequate or When Data Is Inconclusive
MD - Research - § 15-101. Adoptions of dogs or cats used in research facilities This Maryland statute provides that a research facility located in the State in which dogs or cats are used for scientific research purposes shall take reasonable steps to provide for the adoption of a dog or cat after a determination that the animal is no longer needed for research. This shall be done through a private placement process for adoption, establishing a list of animal rescues willing to take in these animals, or offering a dog or cat to the rescues.

Pages