Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc.
Syllabus
The petitioner, N Co., sought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of three elephants that it alleged were being illegally confined by the named respondents, C Co., a zoo, and C Co.'s president, W. N Co. challenged the detention of the elephants, sought recognition of the elephants as ''persons'' recognized by the common law, and requested that the elephants be released. The habeas court dismissed the petition as succes- sive in light of N Co.'s first petition against C Co. and W, which alleged essentially the same facts and sought the same relief. On appeal to this court, at which time only one of the three elephants remained alive, the petitioner claimed that the habeas court erred in dismissing its second petition as successive and that this court's decision on the first petition, which affirmed the habeas court's decision to decline to issue the writ, was incorrect. Held that the habeas court properly dismissed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the elephant, and consequently, N Co., lacked standing to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the elephant had no legally protected interest that possibly could be adversely affected; the reasoning and the holding in the appel- late decision on the first petition were clearly applicable to the present petition and controlled the resolution of this appeal, N Co. failed to present any material distinctions between the first appeal and the present appeal, our habeas corpus jurisprudence contained no indication that habeas corpus relief was ever intended to apply to a nonhuman animal, our common law revealed no instances of a nonhuman animal permitted to bring an action to vindicate its purported rights, only a person, not an animal, whose custody is in question is authorized to file an applica- tion for a writ of habeas corpus, the term ''person'' in our General Statutes has never been defined as a nonhuman animal, and recent legislative activity regarding habeas corpus lacked any indication t
Judges: Alvord; Bright; Beach
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.