|
Detailed Discussion of Humane Societies and Enforcement Powers |
In some states, humane societies are granted police powers to enforce animal cruelty laws. This Article explains the systems that states use to grant police powers to humane societies.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws |
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.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe |
A detailed discussion of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States, Europe and New Zealand.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Michigan Anti-animal Cruelty Law |
This article details Michigan's animal anti-cruelty law. Included in the discussion is an examination of the intentional infliction of pain and suffering law, the duty to provide care law, the animal anti-fighting provision, among other topics. The article also examines the relevant constitutional provisions such as notice requirements, search and seizure law, and the "plain view" exception.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Non-Therapeutic Procedures for Companion Animals |
A discussion on four specific unnecessary medical surgeries in companion animals, including tail docking, ear cropping, devocalization, and declawing. This paper will examine the justifications and legal arguments both for and against the procedures. Finally, it will discuss recent efforts to ban these types of surgeries both at the city and state level, with a brief comparison of tail docking and ear cropping bans in the European Union. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Texas Animal Cruelty Laws |
This article provides an in-depth look at the intricacies of Texas animal cruelty laws. Both the criminal and civil statutes are discussed, as is relevant case law. Additionally, this article introduces a new Texas law governing the keeping of dangerous wild animals.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of the Laws Governing Kangaroo Culling in Australia |
This article provides a detailed discussion of the laws governing kangaroo culling in Australia. The paper analyses both the commercial and non-commercial industry and makes an evaluation as to the legislation's effectiveness. The article also discusses other issues such as enforcement, animal and consumer welfare, as well as the sustainability of the industry.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of the Licensing and Regulation of Pet Shops (U.K.) |
Detailed discussion of the Pet Animals Act 1951 which provides for the licensing of pet shops by local authorities, and prohibits the sale of pet animals in public places and from market stalls, and to persons under 12 years of age.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of the Offences of Cruelty to Domestic and Captive Animals (U.K.) |
Detailed discussion of the offences of cruelty to domestic and captive animals. These offences are contained in section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and section 1 of the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960.
|
|
Dixon v. State |
An owner of a non-profit cat sanctuary, which housed over 200 cats taken care of by one employee, was convicted by a jury of four counts of non-livestock animal cruelty. The trial court placed the owner under community supervision for five years' on each charge, to be served concurrently. In her first issue on appeal, the owner contended the evidence was legally insufficient to support her convictions. Based on evidence that the owner only had one employee to take care of the cats, however, the Texas court of appeals overruled this issue. In her second issue on appeal, the owner contended that the trial court erred by overruling her motion to dismiss the indictments where the State alleged a felony by commission of elements defined as a misdemeanor under the animal cruelty statute. On this issue, the court stated that it was true that the State had to prove that appellant failed to provide food, water, or care to the cats, but it also had to prove death or serious bodily injury to the cat that was committed in a cruel manner, i.e., by causing unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering. In other words, the failure to provide food, water, or care is the manner and means by which appellant killed the cats, causing them unjustified pain or suffering, which raised the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. The second issue was therefore affirmed. The appeals court also overruled the owner’s other issues and thereby affirmed the lower court’s ruling. |
