Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Entitlement Of Chimpanzees To The Common Law Writs Of Habeas Corpus And De Homine Replegiando, Steven M. Wise
The Entitlement Of Chimpanzees To The Common Law Writs Of Habeas Corpus And De Homine Replegiando, Steven M. Wise
Golden Gate University Law Review
In this Article, I claim that humans enslave chimpanzees and thereby deprive them of their bodily liberty and that chimpanzees should be entitled to use the common law writs of habeas corpus and de homine replegiando and to bring their common law claims to bodily liberty before courts. In Part I, I demonstrate that chimpanzees are genetically highly similar to humans and quite cognitively and socially complex. In Part II, I argue that flexibility is part of the common law's basic structure, that legal personhood is one of the common law's basic values, that the structure of the common law …
Different Endings: Lethal Injection, Animal Euthanasia, Humane Slaughter, And Unregulated Slaugter, Jeff Welty
Different Endings: Lethal Injection, Animal Euthanasia, Humane Slaughter, And Unregulated Slaugter, Jeff Welty
Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal
This Article compares the laws and regulations that govern the termination of life in several contexts: lethal injection of condemned inmates; the euthanasia of companion animals; the slaughter of farmed animals covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; and the slaughter of farmed and other animals not covered by the Act.
Carter’S Dissent In Simpson V. City Of Los Angeles: A Precursor To The Animal Rights Movement, Janice E. Kosel
Carter’S Dissent In Simpson V. City Of Los Angeles: A Precursor To The Animal Rights Movement, Janice E. Kosel
Publications
In Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, resident taxpayers who owned licensed dogs who had recently gone astray sought to restrain the enforcement of a city ordinance. Los Angeles Municipal Code section 53.11 (h) allowed the city to surrender for medical research dogs that had been impounded for a period of at least five days. Subsection (h) of the ordinance did not contain any provision for notice to the owner of the impounded dog. As a result, plaintiffs contended that the ordinance was invalid because it constituted an unlawful taking of private property.