Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ringling Brothers On Trial: Circus Elephants And The Endangered Species Act | Mark Eichelman | 16 Animal L. 153 (2009) |
In February 2009, the case of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This Article, written as the case went to trial, analyzes the standing, ESA, and take issues presented in this case and ultimately concludes that the district court should find that the plaintiffs do have standing, the ESA does apply to the captive Asian elephants, and FEI’s actions do constitute takings and should be enjoined. |
| Veterinary Medicine: External Pressures on an Insular Profession and How Those Pressures Threaten to Change Current Malpractice Jurisdiction | Gerald L. Eichinger | 67 Mont. L. Rev. 231 (Summer, 2006) |
This article discusses the recent attention focused on veterinary malpractice claims. The author suggests that changes in both state legislation allowing recovery of non-economic damages for companion animals as well as isolated litigation awards beyond market value for veterinary malpractice make it imperative for the veterinary profession to take a stance on the issue. |
| "SAVE THE WHALES" V. "SAVE THE MAKAH": THE MAKAH AND THE STRUGGLE FOR NATIVE WHALING | Richard Kirk Eichstaedt | 4 Animal L. 145 (1998) | In 1997, the International Whaling Commission approved a quota for the Makah Indian Tribe to hunt four gray whales per year, culminating years of legal wrangling and political maneuvering by all of the concerned parties. Mr. Eichstaedt examines the history of the Makah whaling rights from the Tribe’s treaty with the United States in 1855 to the present-day battles with Congress and the IWC. This unfolding story pits a species of whale once on the brink of extinction, against Native Americans reasserting a centuries-old custom. |
| LIBERATING ANIMAL LAW: BREAKING FREE FROM HUMAN-USE TYPOLOGIES | Jessica Eisen | 17 Animal L. 59 (2010) |
Animal protection laws have traditionally categorized animals according to the manner in which humans use them. Animals have been categorized as companion animals, animals used in medical testing, animals raised for slaughter, and wildlife, and the protection afforded to animals has been ostensibly commensurate to their use categorization. This Article focuses on two alternative strategies that provide legal protection for animals without relying on human use as their primary mode of categorization. First, the Article looks at protecting animals as a single category, in particular through the use of constitutional provisions. The Article then looks at a species-based model that seeks to extend some traditional “human rights” to Great Apes. Ultimately, the Article concludes that the species-based model provides a more effective alternative to the use-based model, since it provides an alternate means of categorization that shifts focus to the needs and capacities of animals. While generalized protection at the constitutional level may be rhetorically effective, it does not offer an alternative form of legal category that would allow for precision in legal rule-making. |
| Problems and Prospects for the Pelagic Driftnet | Robert Eisenbud | 12 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 473 (1985) |
A direct impact of the pelagic driftnet is the incidental taking of marine mammals. Pelagic driftnet fisheries are conducted by vessels from Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. The incidental taking of marine mammals within the Fishery Conservation Zone by the Japanese fleet is subject to regulation under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
| "World Leader" - At What Price? A Look at Lagging American Animal Protection Laws | Stephanie J. Engelsman | 22 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 329 (Fall, 2005) |
This paper will begin in showing that the United States has done virtually nothing to ensure that all creatures are free from unnecessary pain and suffering. This paper will then explore what other developed countries have done towards protecting nonhuman animals in the same amount of time. This paper in no way suggests that any of the countries to be discussed have solved the problem of animal exploitation; however it does suggest that many of those countries have at least begun to make a legitimate and concerted effort towards protecting animals from human greed. |
| Scent Identification Procedures in the U.S. Have Different History and Different Procedures From Those Conducted in Europe | John Ensminger | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Scent lineups, designed to use a dog’s behavior to establish that two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, derive from the same person, have been conducted in radically different ways in the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., scent lineups are often performed outdoors, in fields or parking lots, while in Europe they have for decades only been conducted indoors, often in canine forensic laboratories. In the U.S., lineups of individuals, as opposed to scents taken from individuals, have been part of standard practice in some jurisdictions until recently, but this has not been done in Europe for decades. Tracking of a suspect through a police station has been accepted as a formal identification procedure in the U.S., but not in Europe. |
| CASES AND STATUTES ON THE USE OF DOGS BY WITNESSES WHILE TESTIFYING IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: A Periodically Updated Online Article | John Ensminger | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article examines the use of a "facility dog" - a dog present during testimony at trial - in various court settings. Specific cases and statutes are examined in the article. The diversion between case law and legislation regarding the use of such dogs in courtroom proceedings is widening. |
| Commentary: Bermudez v. Hanan | John Ensminger | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides commentary on the case of Bermudez v. Hanan, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4397, 2013 NY Slip Op 51610(U), which concerned dog bite liability for a therapy dog. |
| Designing a Model Dog Park Law | John J. Ensminger and Frances Breitkopf | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article was originally posted by the Animal Legal & Historical Center five years ago and the authors feel it has been in need of revision for some time. We will from now update the article periodically in this location so that those readers who are involved in creating dog parks, and legislators and their staff involved in modifying laws and regulations to take into account the significance of dog parks in the legal and governmental systems of states, counties, and municipalities, can have what benefit our analysis may provide concerning developments relevant to their interests. Also, those committees and groups that must decide on rules for use of a dog park to be posted at an entrance gate can understand what we think is appropriate and reasonable for a list of requirements, given that users will not want to spend large amounts of time reading a legal text before getting a dog inside the park. The article begins with our views on how dog park law has evolved in recent years, then discusses the laws and regulations that apply to dog parks and similar spaces. It then reviews the rules that often apply to the users of dog parks around the United States. Finally, the model laws and rules are contained in the last section. The model law provisions are somewhat unusual in contemplating the adoption of provisions at a number of legislative levels. Thus there is no single proposed law, but rather a collection of suggested modifications of statutes and regulations, some of which may be appropriately contained in a statute in one jurisdiction but a regulation in another, depending on where related issues are addressed in the codes and rules issued by a state, county, municipality, or other park-regulating entity. [1] |