|
Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System |
This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals. This Article establishes why animals should receive consideration within the legal system, which animals should be focused upon, what some of the legal rights might be, and how the traditional rules of property law will be modified to accommodate the presence of this new category of property.
|
|
Loban v. City of Grapevine |
In this unpublished Texas case, Appellant Jason Loban appeals the trial court's judgment awarding appellee City of Grapevine $10,670.20 in damages. In 2006, Appellant's dogs were declared "dangerous" under the City's municipal ordinance. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court's award of $10,670.20 in damages to the City should be reversed because the City did not plead for monetary relief, the issue was not tried by consent, and there was no evidence to support the award. This Court agreed. In finding the monetary judgment void, the Court observed that the City did not put any request for a monetary award in its pleadings and there was no evidence in the record of the amount of the fine.
|
|
Lockett v. Hill |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff sued defendant after defendant's pit bulls mauled plaintiff's cat to death while they were running loose on plaintiff's property. The trial court found that defendant was negligent and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in compensatory damages but denied plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. Plaintiff sought appeal of the trial court's denial of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and loss of companionship. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the cat owner was not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress.
|
|
Loman v. Freeman |
This case concerns surgical procedures performed on a racehorse that rendered the horse unfit for future racing. The horse's owners brought this action against the veterinarians who performed the surgical procedure, alleging negligence and conversion. The circuit court dismissed and the court of appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. At the state supreme court, the court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. The court found that defendant was permanently deprived of the use of the horse due to its lameness from the surgery, which sustained the claim of conversion. |
|
Long v. Noah's Lost Ark, Inc. |
Owner of lion cub sued animal shelter for refusing to return the cub to him, alleging breach of contract, conversion, replevin, fraud, and intentional misrepresentation. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed. On appeal, the Court affirmed for plaintiff, as plaintiff had established that he was the legal owner of the lion and was entitled to possession.
|
|
Long v. The State of Texas |
Appellant, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, raised 35 points of error in a direct appeal in which he challenged the trial court's voir dire rulings and its evidentiary rulings. The court held that the admission into evidence of photographs was within the discretion of the lower court, which properly determined that the photographs served a proper purpose in enlightening the jury.
|
|
Longhi v. APHIS |
APHIS was unsuccessful in asserting that an applicant who is part of one license as a partnership can not apply for another as a corporation.
|
|
Looking for a Good Home: Balancing Interests in the Disposition of Impounded Animals to Owners and Rescues |
This Article explores the scope of governmental authority to interfere with or terminate the property rights of pet owners in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness. Part I sets out the regulatory framework for local animal control programs, describing the process for handling and disposing of stray animals and the provisions designed to help reunite owners with their pets. Part II then turns to the issue of post-redemption ownership, discussing the recognized reach of the law and its limitations as well as the cases that have contemplated termination of an owner’s rights to a pet. Part III explores the policy reasons that support a clear demarcation of when ownership of an unclaimed, impounded animal should be established in the government, making possible a clear transfer of title from a public shelter to an adopter or transferee, and Part IV suggests means by which a local government might increase the possibility of reuniting an owner with a pet within the appropriate timeframe to avoid the conflicts created by late-redeeming owners. |
|
Lopez v. State |
The court convicted the defendant of cruelty to animals where the defendant left his dog in the car on a hot, sunny, dry day with the windows only cracked an inch and a half. Such action was deemed "transporting or confining animal in a cruel manner."
|
|
Lorenz v. City & Borough of Juneau |
Appellant Dorene Lorenz appealed her conviction for two infractions under a municipal nuisance barking ordinance issued after her neighbors complained that her two dogs barked frequently and for prolonged periods on three specified dates. The City and Borough of Juneau prosecuted the case, which proceeded to a bench trial where the central factual issue was whether the dogs' barking disturbed the neighborhood. Lorenz contended the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague for lacking an objective standard, potentially criminalizing ordinary canine behavior and inviting arbitrary enforcement. The appellate court, applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, construed the ordinance to incorporate an implicit "reasonable person" standard to cure the vagueness defect, thereby providing the requisite notice and guarding against arbitrary application. Procedurally, the court found the lower tribunal abused its discretion by precluding Lorenz from presenting potentially exculpatory video evidence of her dogs' conduct, which was central to her defense against the allegations. Additional due process concerns were identified, including limitations placed on Lorenz's right to cross-examine witnesses and potential discovery violations regarding the production of a "bark log" upon which the court relied in its findings. Given the cumulative impact of these errors on the quasi-criminal proceeding, the appellate court vacated the conviction. The appellate court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. |
