Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| US- Puppy Mills - HSUS Speaks | Kathleen Summers | An article about the state of puppy mills in the US. | |
| Detailed Discussion of Police Shooting Pets Update | Jessica Swadow | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper will begin by outlining how legal claims for the wrongful shooting of dogs are brought in court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows individuals to sue for deprivation of civil rights by those acting under color of law. Associated defenses of qualified and municipal immunity will also be discussed. The paper then examines briefly how state claims may factor into this type of litigation. The next section focuses on how litigation involving the shooting of pets has evolved in the past ten years. It then concludes with an examination of how states and police departments are attempting to reduce such incidents and what, if anything, legislatures are implementing to address legal claims. |
| Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets Update | Jessica Swadow | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This brief summary explores recent trends in cases involving the shooting of pets by police officers. The primary law under which such claims can be brought (42 U.S.C. §1983) is presented as well as defenses available to such actions. Finally, a short discussion on enhancement in training methods for officers and community strategies are provided. |
| Overview of Police Shooting Pets Update | Jesscia Swadow | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This overview explores recent trends in cases involving the shooting of pets by police officers. The primary law under which such claims can be brought (42 U.S.C. §1983) for constitutional violations is presented as well as defenses available to such actions. Finally, a short discussion on enhancement in training methods for officers and community strategies are provided. |
| HUMAN DRAMA, ANIMAL TRIALS: WHAT THE MEDIEVAL ANIMAL TRIALS CAN TEACH US ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS | Katie Sykes | 17 Animal L. 251 (2011) |
The legal system generally does little to protect animals, and one aspect of its inadequacy is a matter of formal structure: under United States and Canadian law, animals are not legal “persons” with an independent right to the protections of the legal system. There are calls to expand the status of animals in the law by providing them with legal standing, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and other formal protections. But, in a way, some of this has happened before. There is a long history, primarily from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking humans and destroying crops. These animals were formally prosecuted in elaborate trials that included counsel to represent their interests. The history of the animal trials demonstrates how, in a human-created legal system, legal “rights” for animals can be used for human purposes that have little to do with the interests of the animals. This history shows us that formal legal rights for animals are only tools, rather than an end in themselves, and highlights the importance not just of expanding formal protections, but of putting them to work with empathy, in a way that strives (despite the inevitable limitations of a human justice system in this respect) to incorporate the animals’ own interests and own point of view. |
| A Step at a Time: New Zealands Progress Towards Hominid Rights | Rowan Taylor | 7 Animal L. 35 (2001) |
Mr. Taylor writes about the Great Ape Project's campaign to win fundamental rights for all hominids with New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act. While the Act was a significant step in the struggle for hominids' rights, larger steps, including a Nonhuman Hominid Protection Bill, will soon follow. |
| 2013 STATE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW | Cameron Taylor | 20 Animal L. 453 (2014) | This article provides a review of significant state animal-related legislation from 2013. |
| Rethinking the Irreparable Harm Factor in Wildlife Mortality Cases | Avalyn Taylor | 2 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 113 (2009) |
This article is divided into three parts. Part I explores how federal courts have defined and analyzed the issue of irreparable harm in cases similar to Humane Society, in which plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctions to prevent the killing of wildlife until their cases can be heard on the merits. In Part II, the author asserts that reform is needed in this area of the law for two primary reasons. In Part III, the author proposes a new model directing courts to define the scope and nature of the harm to be considered by looking to the “primary purpose” of the statute at issue. |
| Antimony: The Use, Rights, And Regulation Of Laboratory Animals | Brenda L. Thomas | 13 PEPP. L. REV. 3 |
This law review examines the nature of the arguments between animal rights advocates and those in favor of the continued use of laboratory animals for research; the parties and their positions will be identified. Consideration will be given to (1) a brief overview of the historical and philosophical basis of the animal rights movement, (2) an examination of whether animals and their particular advocates have standing to bring suit in the courts, (3) an examination of current federal and state regulations concerning laboratory animals and the effect of these laws upon recent court decisions, and (4) a discussion of proposed changes in the law and proposed alternatives to the use of laboratory animals. |
| The Golden Retriever Rule: Alaska's Identity Privilege for Animal Adoption Agencies and for Adoptive Animal Owners | John J. Tiemessen | 21 Alaska L. Rev. 77 |
In this Comment, the authors examine recent national and Alaskan developments regarding a limited testimonial privilege for animal adoption agencies and adoptive owners. Unlike most testimonial privileges, this new privilege e did not exist at common law and has only a limited foundation in statutes or rules of evidence. The authors conclude by noting the effect this privilege has on replevin and conversion cases involving lost animals that have been adopted by new owners. |