| Will the Heavens Fall? De-Radicalizing the Precedent-Breaking Decision |
Paul Waldau |
7 Animal L. 75 (2001) |
|
|
This article offers an extended analogy for the purpose of posing basic questions about proposals for granting legal rights to some nonhuman animals. The analogy is drawn from the precedent-breaking eighteenth century English case Somerset v. Stewart, which liberated an African slave. The article highlights the complex cultural backdrop in each situation, and suggests that the comparison helps one see the nature and possibilities of precedent-breaking decisions that rely on various non-legal resources available to judges who, because of conscience, principle, or policy considerations, choose not to follow established precedent.
|
| Wills & Trusts - Pet Animals: What Happens When Their Humans Die? |
Gerry W. Beyer |
40 SANCLR 617 (2000) |
|
|
(From article) This article chronicles the evolution of enforcing after-death gifts for the benefit of pet animals. Part II reviews the common law background. Part III details the wide variety of approaches adopted by United States courts, legislatures, and commentators. These approaches treat after-death gifts for pets in three basic categories: (1) invalid; (2) tolerated, but not enforceable; and (3) valid and enforceable. After establishing the current milieu in which a pet owner must function, Part IV recommends the steps an owner may take to maximize the chances of the pet receiving the desired care after the owner's death.
|
| Wolf time blah blah |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| wolf timeline blah |
|
|
|
|
![]()
|
| Wolf Timeline hmtl |
|
|
|
|
Pre 1930’s |
| You Are What Your Food Eats: How Regulation Of Factory Farm Conditions Could Improve Human Health And Animal Welfare Alike |
Anastasia S. Stathopoulos |
13 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 407 (2010) |
|
|
Part I of this Note discusses the current conditions on factory farms, including the suffering endured by the animals, the unsanitary and crowded conditions, the unwholesome contents of animal feed, and the drugs regularly administered to the animals. Part II describes how those conditions pose significant health risks for humans who consume factory-farmed meat and dairy products, including threats of antibiotic resistance, bacterial infections, cancer, heart disease, animal-origin influenza, and mad cow disease. Finally, Part III proposes six specific on-farm regulations that could drastically reduce such risks and explores whether the proposed regulations could be enacted by the FDA under the existing regulatory scheme.
|
| YOU DON’T OWN ME: FERAL DOGS AND THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP |
Stacy A. Nowicki |
21 Animal L. 1 (2014) |
|
|
Feral dogs occupy an ambiguous position, challenging standard categories of domestication, wildness, and property ownership. This ambiguity, in turn, complicates the legal status of feral dogs. Feral dogs’ property status is particularly critical, as whether a feral dog is owned by someone, or no one at all, hold implications not only for civil and criminal liability in incidents involving feral dogs, but also the legal ability of animal rescue organizations to intervene in the lives of feral dogs. Part II of this Article summarizes the application of property law to animals, particularly highlighting the role played by an animal’s status as wild or domestic; Part III explores the factors distinguishing feral dogs from other canines, determining that feral dogs should properly be situated as domestic animals; Part IV discusses the legal landscape relevant to feral dogs, focusing particularly on ownership and liability; and Part V examines the ways in which the property status of feral dogs may impact an animal rescue organization’s ability to care for those animals. |
| ZUCHTVIEH-EXPORT GMBH v. STADT KEMPTEN: THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIFORM, CROSS-BORDER REGULATION AND TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY |
David Mahoney |
40 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 363 (2017) |
|
|
In Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten, the European Court of Justice ruled that a European Council regulation that protects animal welfare during transport applies to the stages of a journey outside of the European Union (EU), if that journey commenced within the EU. This ruling by the European Court of Justice has been praised as it improves animal transport conditions outside of the EU. However, transport companies and governments outside of the EU are less welcoming of the ruling. The ruling highlights the difficulty in determining when and how such a regulation should be applied abroad. It also raises the broader question of striking a balance between efficient and uniform regulation across borders and maintaining territorial sovereignty. As a solution to the issues raised in Zuchtvieh-Export, this Comment suggests the use of bilateral international agreements, which would reduce conflict between nations by protecting territorial sovereignty. |
|
