Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time for a Sharper Legal Focus | David Favre | 1 Animal L. 1 (1995) | This article provides an introduction into premiere issue of Animal Law. |
| Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System | David Favre | 10 Animal L. 87 (2004) |
This article explores the obstacles to obtaining legal rights for animals both within the animal rights movement and within the broader political context. The author examines in which arena legal change might best be sought--the courts, the legislature, state governments, or the federal government. Finally, it makes a number of suggestions as to what type of laws would be the most successful in advancing the interests of animals. |
| Overview of Historical Materials | David Favre | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a quick overview of the historical materials available through the Web Center |
| SOME THOUGHTS ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION | David Favre | 2 Animal L. 161 (1996) (pdf version) | This article was adapted from remarks from David Favre at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals. |
| Judicial Recognition of The Interests of Animals - A New Tort | David Favre | 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 333 |
The article examines how the interest of humans are represented in the legal system and how the interests of animals might better be brought into the legal system with the creation of a new tort for the benefit of animals. |
| TWENTY YEARS AND CHANGE | David Favre | 20 Animal L. 7 (2013) |
This Introduction provides an overview of the evolution of animal law over the past twenty years, demonstrating how changes in the law, social awareness, and legal education have directly affected this field. This Introduction describes both the positive and negative changes that have taken place, from the banning of dogfighting and cockfighting by federal law and some state laws; a spread in voter-adopted legislation providing for the protection of agricultural animals; and movements to reduce the use of chimpanzees in animal research; to the limitations of the Animal Welfare Act; changes in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy lifting the ban on USDA inspection of horsemeat; discrimination of certain breeds of dogs through breed-specific legislation; and the weakening of a number of federal laws providing protection to wildlife. This Introduction also provides an overview of case law, discussing attempts to achieve standing for animals and differing approaches in calculating damages for harm to pets. With respect to legal institutions, there has been an increasing presence of animal law sections within the American Bar Association and state bar associations. Animal law has also expanded within legal education. This is evidenced by the emergence of animal law conferences, publications in animal focused law reviews and textbooks, animal law courses at prestigious law schools, and full-time professors specializing in the area of animal law. |
| ANIMAL CONSORTIUM | David S. Favre and Thomas Dickinson | 84 Tenn. L. Rev. 893 (2017) | This article will show that sufficient relational interest can exist between a human and companion animal and that this interest is widely accepted in our culture; therefore, financial recovery for the disruption of this relationship is a fair burden to place upon actors in today's world. This proposal does not seek to give any legal rights to companion animals; instead, this is a proposal to allow the law to acknowledge the depth and reality of the bond between humans and animals that exists in millions of families across the country. First, this article sets out the existing categories of damage for recovery when a defendant's tortious actions result in the death of a companion animal. Integral to this discussion is the reality that companion animals are considered property. Courts most often are unwilling to extend financial recovery to include the emotional loss of the owner of an animal. Second, this article will examine the history of the concept of consortium to show how the legal system has come to accept that the compensable harm is not limited to economic consequences, nor is it limited to husband and wife relationships. Third, this article will present information to support the position that companion animals are emotionally and psychologically important to the human members of many families. Fourth, this article will show that animals have already jumped out of the property box in a number of fact patterns, and therefore, it is appropriate to raise their status in this context as well. Fifth, this article will consider the application of the concept of animal consortium in detail as an extension of the common law cause of action. Finally, acknowledging some of the difficulties that courts may have in implementing this proposal, a legislative draft is proposed to accomplish the recovery sought by this article. |
| OBSTACLES TO LEGAL RIGHTS FOR ANIMALS CAN WE GET THERE FROM HERE? | Susan Finsen | 3 Animal L. i (1997) | This article gives a brief introduction regarding the obstacles to legal rights for animals. |
| Animals as Property | Gary L. Francione | 2 Animal L. i (1996) (pdf version) | This article gives a brief introduction of the social attitudes regarding animals as property. |
| Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance | Gary L. Francione | 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) (html version) |
Animal “rights” is of course not the only philosophical basis for extending legal protections to animals. Another, competing, basis is based on the theory of utilitarianism – the outright rejection of rights for all species and instead advocacy for equal consideration. This is the view espoused by Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation. In this article, Professor Francione compares animal rights with utilitarianism, discussing the pros and cons of each |