Results
| Title | Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Determining the Value of Companion Animals in Wrongful Harm or Death Claims: A Survey of U.S. Decisions and an Argument for the Authorization to Recover for Loss of Companionship in Such Cases | Marcella S. Roukas | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is oftentimes the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Some state court decisions have authorized human guardians of companion animals to plead and recover the “unique value” of the companion animal. Such decisions reflect a shift in the court’s view of companion animals, which acknowledges public policy concerns for the guardian of the companion animal. This article discusses the law in United States concerning recovery of damages in cases involving harm to companion animals and the reasoning behind why courts should acknowledge such a recovery. |
||
| Determining the Value of Companion Animals in Wrongful Harm or Wrongful Death Claims: A Survey of U.S. Decisions and Legislative | Marcella Roukas | 3 J. Animal L. 45 (2007) | The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is often times the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Needless to say, awarding damages at fair market value serves as little or no deterrence for the tortfeasor. This is especially true in cases where the companion animal lacks pedigree or special training. However, some decisions have authorized human guardians of companion animals to plead and recover the “unique value” of the companion animal. Such decisions reflect a shift in the court’s view of companion animals, which acknowledges public policy concerns for the guardian of the companion animal. This article discusses the law in United States on companion animals and proposes legislative action in the state of Florida for the recovery of the “loss of companionship” for owners of companion animals. |
||
| Did United States v. Hayashi Fail to Provide a Safe Harbor for Marine Mammals Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act? | April Fisher and Amber A. Bell | 27 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 67 (1997) | This article examines the holding in United States v. Hayashi and concludes that by narrowly defining what constitutes "harm" under the MMPA, the Ninth Circuit ignored the plain meaning of the term, the legislative history of the MMPA and the regulations interpreting the MMPA. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit's holding in Hayashi allows fishermen to harass marine mammals as long as the action does not seriously disrupt normal marine mammal behavior. |
||
| Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals | Steven M. Wise | 7 Animal L. 9 (2001) | This article presents the remarks of Steven M. Wise on the status of animals in the legal system. |
||
| Does Every Dog Really Have Its Day?: A Closer Look at the Inequity of Iowa's Breed-Specific Legislation | Olivia Slater | 66 Drake L. Rev. 975 (2018) | Breed-specific laws are well intentioned, but the fear and urgency driving their enactment has led to questionable craftsmanship by lawmaking bodies. These quick-fix statutes and ordinances have resulted in a variety of unintended negative side effects that far outweigh the laws’ utilities, yet these discriminatory and ineffective laws remain in place in the municipal codes of numerous Iowa communities. This Note proposes a reform to Iowa’s existing breed-specific legislation which would eliminate the inequalities of the current laws and preserve the power of municipalities to remedy public safety concerns. | ||
| Dog Baiting Abatement: Using Nuisance Abatement to Regulate Dogfighting | Rachel Blumenfeld | 17 Sports Law. J. 1 (2010) | This article explores the history of dogfighting and its effects on today's society. It then suggests nuisance abatement as a possible way to regulate and perhaps eliminate dogfighting. The article discusses the evolution of the public nuisance cause of action. The article then offers closing thoughts on whether, and perhaps how, dogfighting should be managed under public nuisance law. |
||
| Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Challenge | Rakhyun E. Kim | 14 Animal Law 201 (2007) | This article explores the dog meat debate in Korea from a socio-legal perspective. It first examines the legal status of dogs and dog meat, and the legal protection for dogs under the old and new legislative frameworks. It then discusses socio-legal challenges to banning dog meat in the Korean context, employing examples of both legal approaches taken by other countries and the politics of dog meat in Korea, specifically. The article argues that the controversy over dog meat must be reframed and dog meat be socially redefined in order to protect dogs, which are currently caught in the conflict over their socio-legal status as companion and livestock animals. |
||
| DOG MEAT TRADE IN SOUTH KOREA: A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE TRADE AND EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE IT | Claire Czajkowski | 21 Animal L. 29 (2014) | Within South Korea, the dog meat trade occupies a liminal legal space— neither explicitly condoned, nor technically prohibited. As a result of existing in this legal gray area, all facets of the dog meat trade within South Korea—from dog farms, to transport, to slaughter, to consumption—are poorly regulated and often obfuscated from review. In the South Korean context, the dog meat trade itself not only terminally impacts millions of canine lives each year, but resonates in a larger national context: raising environmental concerns, and standing as a proxy for cultural and political change. Part II of this Article describes the nature of the dog meat trade as it operates within South Korea; Part III examines how South Korean law relates to the dog meat trade; Part IV explores potentially fruitful challenges to the dog meat trade under South Korean law; similarly, Part V discusses growing social pressure being deployed against the dog meat trade. | ||
| Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point | Barbara Hanson | 12 Animal L. 217 (2005) | Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation. |
||
| Dogs in Dorms: How the United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney Illustrates A Coverage Gap Created by the Intersection of Fair Housing and Disability Law | Katherine R. Powers | 47 Creighton L. Rev. 363 | In United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, a federal district court was asked to determine whether a university, as a provider of housing for its students, must comply with the standards set out in the Fair Housing Act? Typically, the Fair Housing Act requires that housing providers make reasonable accommodations to no-pets policies for people with disabilities to live with emotional support animals, regardless of the animal's training as a service animal. The federal court, however, held that the Fair Housing Act also requires universities to waive no-pets policies for students with emotional support animals. This article examines the test used to determine the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to dwellings—arguing for a new factor test—and also discusses the current test’s effect on the legal coverage for emotional support animals. |