United States

Summary: Pratte and Zelenka were in a relationship up until their separation in 2015. Zelenka moved out of the residence that they had shared, however, he was unable to retrieve several items of personal property one of which was a French bulldog named Pavlov. Zelenka filed a complaint against Pratte alleging conversion. Zelenka contended that Pavlov was given to him as a birthday gift from Pratte. The district court ordered Pratte to return Pavlov to Zelenka and the rest of the personal property to remain with Pratte. Pratte appealed and Zelenka cross-appealed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that although the parties styled their complaint as one for conversion, the parties tried the action as one for replevin and treated the case in all respects as if replevin had been raised in the pleadings, therefore, the Court treated the action as one in which replevin had been raised in the pleadings. The Court ultimately found the following: Zelenka met his burden of proving that Pavlov was a gift from Pratte; Pratte failed to meet his burden of proving that the Niche leather couch, Niche lamps, and French bulldog lamp were gifts from Zelenka; and that those three items should be returned to Zelenka. As for the other items of personal property, the Court found that there was no basis to set aside the district court’s finding that Zelenka failed to meet his burden of proving ownership. The Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Summary: Plaintiff, Stuart Goldman, was the former chief humane law enforcement officer for the Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Plaintiff alleged that in May of 2015, he learned from a resident of Matawan that Critter Control of New Jersey had trapped a female adult raccoon and removed it from the roof of a house. A few days later, baby raccoons were found in the gutters of that same house. Those baby raccoons allegedly went without sustenance for a week. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Critter Control for violation of New Jersey law. The case was dismissed with prejudice and the court stated that the statute only provided for organizations to seek a civil remedy under the New Jersey statute and that Plaintiff had brought his complaint in his individual capacity and, therefore, lacked standing. Plaintiff had also filed a second case in which the he alleged that Simplicity Farms was mistreating horses. This was ultimately dismissed by the trial court. Plaintiff appealed both cases which were ultimately consolidated on appeal. Plaintiff contended on appeal that he had standing to sue in the name on Monmouth SPCA as a qui tam action and that the court erred by not granting his motion for reconsideration to allow him to amend the complaint with the proper caption. Plaintiff also contended that his complaint against Simplicity Farms should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff argued that the N.J.S.A. 4:22-26 authorized qui tam suits because it provided that “any person in the name of the New Jersey [SPCA] or county SPCA can sue for civil penalties.” Based on the legislative history and the amendments to the PCAA, the Court concluded that the PCAA did not authorize qui tam lawsuits as the Plaintiff contended. The Court found no misapplication of discretion by the trial court denying Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaints because the amendments would have been futile in light of his lack of standing. The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Summary: In November of 2005 DNR issued an emergency rule that authorized park managers to permit individuals to trap racoons during Indiana’s official trapping season which it reissued on an annual basis from 2007 to 2013. Harry Bloom, a security officer at Versailles State Park (VSP) began installing his own lethal traps with the authorization from the park’s manager. The park manager did not keep track of where the traps were placed nor did Bloom post any signs to warn people of the traps due to fear of theft. As a result, Melodie Liddle’s dog, Copper, died in a concealed animal trap in the park. Liddle filed suit against several state officials and asked the court to declare the state-issued emergency rules governing trapping in state parks invalid. The trial court awarded damages to Liddle for the loss of her dog. Liddle appealed the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment limiting the calculation of damages and denying her request for declaratory judgment. On appeal, Liddle claimed that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of DNR for declaratory judgment on the emergency trapping rules and in excluding sentimental value from Liddle’s calculation of damages. The Court concluded that Liddle’s claim for declaratory relief was moot because the 2012 and 2013 versions of the emergency rule were expired and no longer in effect. The Court also concluded that recovery of a pet is limited to fair market-value since animals are considered personal property under Indiana law. The Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Summary: This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife.

Summary: This is a book review of the casebook "Animal Law."

Summary: Selective breeding and genetic engineering of domestic animals represent two of science's most manipulative advancements of the last century. One of the many questions raised by these procedures is whether the suffering produced violates state anti-cruelty laws. California's animal anti-cruelty statute is one of the most comprehensive and progressive in the country. This article examines whether selective breeding and genetic engineering violate California's anti-cruelty statute, highlighting recent California case law interpreting these statutes and outlining the standard to determine when a violation has occurred. Furthermore, the article seeks to articulate policy suggestions to further the protection afforded these animals affected by science.

Summary: Animals have historically been one of the most vulnerable segments of society to crime due both to their status as property and their inability to advocate for themselves. While this has long worked to their disadvantage, developments in an area of jurisprudence where criminal and property law merge now offer an unprecedented possibility. Forfeiture laws have become one of the most powerful and effective tools in the war against crime. The principles and precedents that have emerged from asset forfeiture are aptly suited to application in the animal cruelty context as well. This article discusses asset forfeiture and animal cruelty, offering suggestions on how to combine these two areas of law in an effort to better protect animals from abuse.

Summary: Mr. Suckling connects the linguistic diversity crisis with the loss of biodiversity and argues that the loss of one necessarily means the loss of another.

Summary: Despite the traditional view of animals as mere chattels, courts are increasingly viewing animals as more than "things," recognizing the intrinsic value of animal companions. With the help of organizations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, case law, local ordinances, and popular attitudes are changing, reflecting the understanding that animals have the capacity to live full mental and emotional lives. This essay tracks these changes, arguing that the time has come to recognize a different legal status for companion animals.

Summary: This is a review of state and federal legislation in 1999.