A Brief in Support of Happy’s Appeal

Nonhuman Rights Project (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX


We present ethical reasons that the court should grant the Nonhuman Rights Project’s (NhRP) request for habeas corpus relief for Happy, an elephant. Happy has a basic interest in not being confined, an interest that should be legally protected just as the human interest in not being confined is legally protected. Since the decision in The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Breheny failed to weigh Happy’s interests properly, we ask this body to correct the error.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Nonhuman animal property: Reconciling environmentalism and animal rights.John Hadley - 2005 - Journal of Social Philosophy 36 (3):305–315.
Legal Personhood and Animal Rights.Visa Kurki - 2021 - Journal of Animal Ethics 11 (1):47-62.
Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Animal rights & human morality.Bernard E. Rollin (ed.) - 1992 - Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Animal rights and human morality.Bernard E. Rollin - 1981 - Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Defending Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2001 - University of Illinois Press.
Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare.Marc Bekoff & Carron A. Meaney (eds.) - 1998 - Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.


Added to PP

189 (#93,787)

6 months
84 (#44,233)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Adam Lerner
Rutgers - New Brunswick
Gary Comstock
North Carolina State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references