NY court: Chimps don't have same rights as humans
Court Alerts
A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is neither precedent nor legal basis for treating animals as persons.
Related listings
-
India top court lifts ban on female makeup artists
Court Alerts 11/11/2014India's Supreme Court on Monday ordered the lifting of a ban on women working as makeup artists in the movie industry, ending a decades-long discriminatory practice. India's film industry is among the most prolific in the world with nearly 1,500 film...
-
German court lifts injunction banning Uber
Court Alerts 09/22/2014A court in Germany has lifted an emergency injunction that banned the ridesharing service Uber from operating anywhere in the country.The Frankfurt state court ruled Tuesday that the urgent measures taxi drivers won against their upstart rival last m...
-
Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds 2011 union law
Court Alerts 08/05/2014The fight over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's signature policy achievement, a law effectively ending collective bargaining for most public employees, ended Thursday with the state Supreme Court declaring it to be constitutional. Passage of the law in ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.