Animal Rights
Displaying 121 - 130 of 252
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KERALA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 | This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence. |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE PUDUCHERRY ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1965 | This law, specific to the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry), prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of temples. Persons shall not perform, officiate at, or participate in animal sacrifice. |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE TELANGANA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1950 | The Act, specific to the South Indian state of Telangana, prohibits animal and bird sacrifice at places of public religious worship or in congregations associated with religious worship in a public street. Persons sacrificing animals can be imprisoned under this law. The law also prohibits persons from officiating at such animal sacrifices. Such persons can be fined. Animal sacrifice or officiating at an animal sacrifice is a cognizable offence—the accused can be arrested without a warrant. |
| IN - Cruelty - Section 428 Indian Penal Code 860 | The provision criminalizes killing, maiming, or 'rendering useless' any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees and upwards. |
| Incidente de apelación en autos G. B., R. s/inf. ley 14346 | This is an appeal of a decision in first instance where the lower court gave the custody of 68 dogs to the Center for Prevention of Animal Cruelty. The 68 dogs were found in extremely poor conditions, sick, malnourished, dehydrated under the custody of the Defendant. Various dogs had dermatitis, conjunctivitis, otitis, sparse hair and boils, lacerations, pyoderma and ulcers. The officers that executed the search also found the decomposing body of a dead dog inside the premises. The lower court determined the defendant had mental disabilities, which did not allow her to comprehend the scope of her acts, for which she was not found guilty of animal cruelty. However, the court determined that she was not suited to care for the dogs. The Defendant appealed the decision arguing that the authorities were not entitled to seize the animals. |
| Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System | |
| Interlocutory Appeal No. 0059204-56.2020.8.16.0000 - Paraná, Brazil |
In this case, the Justice Tribunal in Paraná, Brazil, unanimously overturned the lower court decision and ruled that two dogs, Rambo and Spike (appellants), had the legal capacity to be legal persons and, therefore, had standing to sue their owners, Pedro Rafael de Barros Escher and Elizabeth Merida Devai (Appellees) in a damages claim. Upon thorough examination of the validity of Decree-Law 24,645/1934, granting the Public Prosecutor's Office and animal protection entities the authority to act as legal representatives for animals, the court determined that the decree is an ordinary law (higher hierarchy than other laws), and was still in full force. As a result, animals in Brazil are explicitly endowed with the legal capacity to participate as parties in judicial proceedings by law. The judge referenced the 2005 case Suíça v. Gavazza, a groundbreaking decision where the chimpanzee, the subject of a Habeas Corpus, had passed away before the final judgment. The judge concluded that there is a discernible judicial trend towards accepting animals as legal persons with the ability to be a party in legal proceedings. Furthermore, the court stated that the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 established the principle of unobstructed access to justice, which means that every holder of substantive rights can be a party in a judicial proceeding; without this ability, such principle is ineffective and pointless. The appeal was granted, and the court ordered that Rambo and Spike maintain their role as the focal points of the lawsuit, acting as plaintiffs represented by the NGO. |
| International Animal Rights: Specieism and Exclusionary Human Dignity | |
| Introduction to Animal Law Book | Steven M. Wise gives the introduction to Syracuse Law Review's Animal Law Book from 2017. |
| Introduction to Animal Rights |
|