Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Carlos Lozano | Lozano, C. 2022. Animal rights in Colombia: a critical reading in environmental perspective. State Law Magazine. 54 (Nov. 2022), 345–380. | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). | Article | |||||||
| DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo | 462 A.2d 1260 (N.J. 1983) | 94 N.J. 144 (1983) |
The principal issue in this New Jersey case is the liability of a dog owner to an infant plaintiff bitten by the owner's dog. At trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, affirmed. A factual issue existed at the trial, however, as to whether the infant plaintiff was lawfully on the property of the owner, but the trial court did not submit that question to the jury. The omission is important because the "dog-bite" statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, imposes absolute liability on an owner whose dog bites someone who is "lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog." If the plaintiff was a trespasser, he was not lawfully on the property, and liability should not be determined under the statute but according to common-law principles. It was necessary to find that the invitation to infant plaintiff to be on defendant's property extended to the area where the dog was chained. |
Case | |||||||
| Desanctis v. Pritchard | 803 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) | The trial court dismissed a couple's complaint asking the court to enforce a settlement agreement which provided for shared custody of the couple's dog. The appellate court upheld that decision, holding that the settlement agreement was void to the extent that it attempted to award visitation or shared custody with personal property. | Case | ||||||||
| DeSanctis v. Pritchard |
Plaintiff seeks enforcement of contract with ex-spouse for sharing possession of dog. Lower court refused to enforce agreement saying that dogs were just property and shared possession was not possible. |
Pleading | |||||||||
| Desecrating the Ark: Animal Abuse and the Law's Role in Prevention | Margit Livingston | 87 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (2001) |
This article examines the three major historical theological and philosophical views of animal-human relationships. The article then examines the historical legal treatment of animals, finding that the modern view supports a legal reform based on the interrelationship of animal cruelty and human behavior. Finally, Part IV outlines desired changes in animal cruelty laws, with increased criminal sanctions for adult animal abusers, cross-reporting requirements, more frequent placement of juvenile animal offenders in treatment programs, and restrictions on ownership of animals by convicted animal abusers. |
Article | |||||||
| Designing a Model Dog Park Law | John J. Ensminger and Frances Breitkopf | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article was originally posted by the Animal Legal & Historical Center five years ago and the authors feel it has been in need of revision for some time. We will from now update the article periodically in this location so that those readers who are involved in creating dog parks, and legislators and their staff involved in modifying laws and regulations to take into account the significance of dog parks in the legal and governmental systems of states, counties, and municipalities, can have what benefit our analysis may provide concerning developments relevant to their interests. Also, those committees and groups that must decide on rules for use of a dog park to be posted at an entrance gate can understand what we think is appropriate and reasonable for a list of requirements, given that users will not want to spend large amounts of time reading a legal text before getting a dog inside the park. The article begins with our views on how dog park law has evolved in recent years, then discusses the laws and regulations that apply to dog parks and similar spaces. It then reviews the rules that often apply to the users of dog parks around the United States. Finally, the model laws and rules are contained in the last section. The model law provisions are somewhat unusual in contemplating the adoption of provisions at a number of legislative levels. Thus there is no single proposed law, but rather a collection of suggested modifications of statutes and regulations, some of which may be appropriately contained in a statute in one jurisdiction but a regulation in another, depending on where related issues are addressed in the codes and rules issued by a state, county, municipality, or other park-regulating entity. [1] | Article | |||||||
| Detailed Discussion - Protecting Animals: Domestic Abuse and Animal Abuse Linked | Emilie B. Ridge | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This is a detailed discussion of the connection between Domestic Abuse and Animal Abuse. This article explores how abusers use animals as a means of control and the problems that victims face when leaving a domestic violence situation with an animal. A few states allow a victim to include their animals in the protection order, and several other states are introducing similar legislation. |
Article | |||||||
| Detailed Discussion Landowner and Landlord Liability for Dangerous Animals | David S. Favre | Michigan State University College of Law |
This overview explores the liability for both landowners and landlords for injuries to third parties caused by tenant's animals. As a general proposition, liability is imputed only where the landowner or landlord has a duty to a third party, which is usually based on knowledge of the vicious propensity of the animal. Further, the injury must be reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. The paper sets forth the level of duty owed to different classes of third party visitors (licensees, invitees, and trespassers) as well as how the location of an attack affects landlord liability. |
Article | |||||||
| Detailed Discussion of Ag-gag Laws | Alicia Prygoski | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper examines ag-gag laws and how they affect farmed animals, farming employees, industrialized farming operations, and individual rights. It will look at the history of ag-gag laws and how they have changed since becoming more prominent in 2011. It will also explore the constitutionality of these laws and whether the various types hold up to constitutional scrutiny. | Article |