Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Brief History of Animal Law, Part II (1985 – 2011) | Joyce Tischler | 5 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 27 (2012) | This article traces the growth of the field of animal law from 1985 to the present. It tracks the effort by attorneys and law students in the United States and abroad to institutionalize animal law classes, scholarly conferences, animal law sections in state, local, and regional bar associations, as well as the American Bar Association. It provides a review of efforts to spearhead lawsuits, legislative enactments, initiatives, and other means to gain greater protections for animals. Section II of the article describes the development of an institutional structure in various sectors of the legal community. Section III presents a review of landmark lawsuits and legislation. The article concludes with a summary of the major lessons that have been learned. |
| The History of Animal Law, Part I (1972-1987) | Joyce Tischler | Joyce Tischler, 1 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 1 (2008) | Animals have always been the subjects of litigation. Early legal literature is replete with cases that range from the conversion of a farmer’s cow to the debate about who owns wildlife, [1] from criminal prosecutions of humans for cruelty to animals [2] to criminal prosecutions of animals for crimes that they allegedly committed. [3] The purpose of this article is not simply to discuss the significance of individual cases involving animals, but rather to explore the roots of a large-scale, organized movement, which started in the early 1970s in the United States, spearheaded by attorneys and law students with the express purpose of filing lawsuits to protect animals and establishing the concept of their legal rights, regardless of the species of the animals or the ownership interest of humans. What we now call Animal Rights Law or Animal Law began when attorneys consciously considered animal-related legal issues from the perspective of the animal’s interests, when they began to view the animal as the de facto client, and where the goal was to challenge institutionalized forms of animal abuse and exploitation. Within the scope of a law review article, it is not practical to list all of the lawsuits filed from 1972 to 1987. [4] The goal of this article is to trace the beginnings of animal law as a legal discipline and analyze the thought processes of its leaders, how the surrounding animal rights movement influenced the direction of animal law, and how the choices that were made shaped the foundation and growth of this area of the law. This article is written in the first person, because I don’t wish to mislead the reader who might assume that I am a dispassionate historian. I am an animal rights lawyer; the people described herein are my respected colleagues. |
| A Review of Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart by Dr. Marc Bekoff | Michael Tobias | 9 Animal L. 323 (2003) |
This article contains a review of the book, Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart by Dr. Marc Bekoff. |
| Brief Summary of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws | Paige M. Tomaselli | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Summary comparing the laws of the US and Europe on the subject of companion animals and confinement farming, including slaughter and transport. |
| Overview of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws | Paige M. Tomaselli | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
Overview of the comparison between US animal cruelty laws and those in Europe. Specifically, laws of the US, EU, Germany, Norway and Switzerland are addressed. The comparison is based around companion animal and confinement farming laws, transportation and slaughter. |
| Detailed Discussion of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws | Paige M. Tomaselli | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
A detailed analysis of the differences and similarities between US, European Union, Swiss, Norwegian and German animal cruelty laws. The theories behind these differences are explored. Finally, possible and definite future reforms shed light on upcoming animal cruelty law. |
| Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills | Melissa Towsey | 21 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 159 (2010) |
This Comment defines the current federal and state regulations targeting the commercial breeding industry. It critically examines the successes and failures of current legislation regulating commercial breeders. The article considers the environmental impacts of large commercial breeding facilities and suggest that these operations should be regulated as animal feeding operations (AFOs). Finally, Section V evaluates the need for further federal and state governmental regulation of commercial breeding facilities through pollution control and waste management, thereby ensuring the well-being of commercially-bred dogs as well as the local environment. |
| Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow: Equine Cosmetic Crimes and Other Tails of Woe | Sandra Tozzini | 9 Animal L. 159 (2003) |
Many invasive procedures, including surgery, are performed on horses’ tails purely for cosmetic reasons. These procedures fall into a variety of categories from the arguably unethical to the undoubtedly criminal. Although criminal laws prohibiting certain cosmetic surgeries have been in existence for approximately one hundred years, they rarely have been enforced. This article reviews the current status of both American and international “anti-cosmetic” statutes, focusing on the constitutional problems that the current American statutes raise. The article proposes a model federal statute that is constitutionally sound, addresses all forms of cosmetic tail procedures, and provides a vehicle for enforcement. |
| Shoot First, Talk Later: Blowing Holes in Freedom of Speech | Jacqueline Tresl | 8 Animal L. 177 (2001) |
Ms. Tresl examines the constitutionality of hunter harassment laws. When a five-step doctrinal analysis is applied to hunter harassment statutes, it is clear that the statutes are content-based and subject to the strictest of scrutiny. Because the statutes fail the strict scrutiny test, they therefore violate the American citizenry's First Amendment right to free expression. |
| The Role of Animals in Livable Communities | Laurence H. Tribe | 7 Animal L. 1 (2001) |
This article contains remarks by Laurence Tribe on the work of Steven M. Wise. |