Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cueing and Probable Cause: Research May Increase Defense Attacks on and Judicial Skepticism of Detection Dog Evidence | John J. Ensminger and L.E. Papet | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The Supreme Court has recognized the uniquely non-intrusive nature of a canine sniff means that using dogs in certain situations does not involve a search. This has encouraged the use of detection dogs in law enforcement, and limited the costs associated with producing evidence of canine alerts in court. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decisions do not mean that any claim that a dog may have alerted can justify a further search, and courts have recognized that a dog must be reliable for an alert to have this consequence. Thus, a high level of reliability must be expected of a canine team, and a failure to conduct adequate training or maintain complete records to establish that reliability will not exclude the possibility that a called alert may actually have been cued, precluding the use of the alert at trial. |
| Walking Search Warrants: Canine Forensics and Police Culture after Florida v. Harris | John J. Ensminger and L.E. Papet | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 1 | The 1983 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Place set initial parameters to tell police how and when dogs could be used at airports and in a number of other environments. Recently, narcotics detection dogs have come to be considered “walking search warrants” by their human counterparts. Particularly since the United States Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris in 2013, such attitudes in law enforcement have been reinforced as to the use of such dogs in public places. This article explores the interaction of canine forensics and police culture, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris. |
| Resolving Confusion in Pet Owner Tort Cases: Recognizing Pets' Anthropomorphic Qualities Under a Property Classification | Lynn A. Epstein | 26 SILULJ 31 (Fall, 2001) |
The author examines the important role pets play in our lives in contrast with their nominal assessed market value by courts. The author then provides a uniform suggestion that will enable courts to standardize an owner's pet loss claim. Courts should continue to classify pets as property, yet relax the classification standard to permit a flexible market value analysis that includes the right to assert a punitive damage claim as a means of providing adequate and fair recompense to the grieving pet owner. |
| There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases | Lynn A. Epstein | 13 Animal Law 129 (2006) |
Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases. |
| To What Extent Does Wealth Maximization Benefit Farmed Animals? A Law And Economics Approach To A Ban On Gestation Crates In Pig Production | Geoffrey C. Evans | 13 Animal Law 167 (2006) |
A law and economics approach in the current animals-as-property realm could be the most efficient way to gain protections for the billions of farmed animals that need them now. The wealth maximization theory allows for this because it recognizes human valuation of nonhuman interests. However, evidence shows that a market failure exists because of the discord between public will and animal industry practices. Where human valuation of nonhuman interests is underrepresented in the market and, therefore, a market fix is needed through legislation, animal advocates should evaluate the legislation’s economic impacts. In the case of a ban on gestation crates, as may be the case elsewhere, legislation may actually prove to be economically efficient, and thus gain the support of those who would not otherwise back such legislation. |
| Some Thoughts on Animal Experimentation | David Favre | 2 Animal Law 161 (1996) (html version) |
This article develops a quick context for discussing the use of animals in scientific research. |
| Judicial Recognition of The Interests of Animals - A New Tort | David Favre | 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 333 |
The article examines how the interest of humans are represented in the legal system and how the interests of animals might better be brought into the legal system with the creation of a new tort for the benefit of animals. |
| Debate Within the CITES Community: What Direction for the Future? | David Favre | 33 Natural Resources Journal 875 (1993) |
This article introduces the reader to the context and terms of the international treaty for the protection of endangered species (CITES) There is a focus on the attempt to deal with the concept of sustainable use as relates to wildlife by the various states of the world and nongovernmental organizations. |
| Equitable Self-Ownership for Animals | David Favre | 50 Duke Law Jour. 473 (2000) |
This Article proposes a new use of existing property law concepts to change the juristic personhood status of animals. Presently, animals are classified as personal property, which gives them no status or standing in the legal system for the protection or promotion of their interests. Professor Favre suggests that it is possible and appropriate to divide living property into its legal and equitable components, and then to transfer the equitable title of an animal from the legal title holder to the animal herself. This would create a new, limited form of self-ownership in an animal, an equitably self-owned animal. |
| Overview of U.S. Animal Welfare Act | David Favre | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a detailed consideration of the nature and scope the United States Animal Welfare Act. |