328 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
lie nuisance that had already been stricken by the 
Court (50). Failure by FOA to object to the request 
resulted in the request being granted on May 9, 
1983, leaving intact the counts concerning the 
claimed violation of the New Jersey anticruelty 
statute and the alleged theft of Quintana’s dog 
(106). 
On December 9, 1983, FOA’s lawyer moved to 
withdraw as counsel in the Federal case. The re- 
quest was granted in March 1984. On August 23, 
1984, FOA’s new attorney filed a motion to dis- 
miss the Federal complaint with prejudice, and 
moved to withdraw the State complaint and to 
set aside a judgment of dismissal entered in that 
case. Both motions were granted and the lawsuits 
were dismissed, not to be filed again (51,52,106). 
A newspaper story a week before the dismissal 
and withdrawal motions were filed by FOA re- 
ported that prior counsel had instituted suit 
against FOA for nonpayment of legal fees in the 
U.S. Surgical cases and others filed on FOA’s be- 
half (6). 
Discussion of the Case 
Almost 3 years of legal sparring over an animal 
welfare controversy, conducted in both Federal 
and State courts, came to no substantive conclu- 
sion on the real issues in disagreement. There was 
no examination by a judge or a jury of the evi- 
dence to determine whether U.S. Surgical's use 
of anesthetized dogs to train its personnel in the 
use of surgical -stapling equipment on human pa- 
CHAPTER 14 
1 .Alaska Statutes , Section 11.61. 140(3)(b) (1982 
Supp.). 
2. American Jurisprudence, 2d. ed., vol. 4, sec. 27 
(1982). 
3. American Law Reporter, 2d. ed., vol. 82, sec. 794 
(1984). 
4. American Law Reporter, 2d. ed., vol. 56, sec. 1031 
(1984). 
5. Animal Welfare Institute v. Kreps, 561 F.2d 1002, 
1007 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 
6. Barnes, P., "Animal Advocates Are No Friends to 
Lawyer,” New Haven (CT) Register, p. 17 (cols. 
1-6), Aug. 17, 1984. 
tients was cruel or unjustified. FOA’s attempts to 
invoke Federal and State animal use, anticruelty, 
animal theft, and even environmental statutes to 
"punish” or control behavior it deemed cruel or 
unjustified accomplished little more than the con- 
sumption of substantial amounts of time and ju- 
dicial resources. 
This result can be attributed to a number of 
factors, chief among which is a demonstrated 
reluctance on the part of judges to permit private 
enforcement of laws entrusted by legislation to 
administrative and law-enforcement agencies. 
Whether FOA decided to abandon its prosecution 
of U.S. Surgical as a result of disagreements with 
initial counsel or a realization of the unlikelihood 
of a victory on the merits is an open question. 
Statements attributed to FOA representatives in 
published press accounts could support both of 
those reasons (6,55). 
Connecticut regulates the use of live compan- 
ion animals (dogs) in research; its general anti- 
cruelty statutes make no mention as to whether 
its provisions also apply to the conduct of re- 
search. The same situation exists in 24 other 
States. If the complex and wholly inconclusive le- 
gal maneuvering in Friends of Animals, Inc. v. U.S. 
Surgical Corporation is indicative of what might 
occur in similar circumstances in other jurisdic- 
tions, it is unrealistic to expect a result that settles 
anything or satisfies any party with an ideologi- 
cal interest in the treatment of laboratory animals 
and the human benefits of animal research. 
REFERENCES 
7. Bean, M., Evolution of National Wildlife Law (Wash- 
ington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality, 
1977). 
8. BioScience, "Taub Animal Cruelty Trial Sparks 
Guideline Review," 32(1):15, 1982. 
9. Brackett v. State, 142 Ga. App. 601, 236 S.E.2d 
689 (1977). 
10. Brief for Edward Taub, Edward Taub v. Mary- 
land, 296 Md. 439, 463 A. 2d 819 (1983). 
11. Brief for State of Maryland, Edward Taub v. 
Maryland, 296 Md. 439, 463 A. 2d 819 (1983). 
12. Burr, S., "Toward Legal Rights for Animals,” En- 
viron. Aff. 4:205-219, 1975. 
