Results
Displaying 2121 - 2130 of 6844
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examining the Veterinary Client-Patient Relationship in the United States: Why the Abolition of the In-Person Examination Requirement is Warranted | Jeffrey P. Feldmann | 56 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 91 (2023) | This Note examines the development of VCPR law, the incorporation - or lack thereof - of telehealth into VCPR law across the United States, and considers VCPR effect on access to care. After discussing the state of the veterinary industry and the regulatory scheme of veterinary medicine, Part II assesses VCPR laws across the United States, establishing that there is general uniformity from state to state. In Part II, the Note juxtaposes human medicine's widespread acceptance of telehealth to establish valid doctor-patient relationships with relative absence of such acceptance of telehealth in veterinary medicine to establish valid VCPRs. Part III then discusses and analyzes existing litigation concerning VCPR law and telehealth measures in the Fifth Circuit and in California. The Note concludes by proposing more widespread adoption of telemedicine as a means to establish a VCPR in order to improve access to quality care for veterinarians, clients, and patients more closely aligned with human medicine. | Article | |
| EXAMINING THE VIABILITY OF ANOTHER LORD OF YESTERDAY: OPEN RANGE LAWS AND LIVESTOCK DOMINANCE IN THE MODERN WEST | Coby Dolan | 5 Animal L. 147 (1999) | In this comment, the author explores the development of open range laws in Oregon and other western states and argues such laws should be abolished or drastically amended. Common law requires ranchers to fence livestock in or face liability for damages caused by strays. However, historical customs and practices of Western states were shaped by vast open lands and sparce populations, leading to open range customs which required a landowner to fence "out" livestock to protect their property. This comment focuses on the case of Dr. Patrick Shipsey, an Oregon landowner convicted of shooting cattle that wandered onto his land. Through this discussion, the viability of open range statutes is discussed and the ongoing debate exposed. Policy alternatives are proposed that reflect modern demographic changes and a re-balancing of the economic and environmental burdens of ranching practices. | Article | |
| Excerpt Criminal Code of the State of Coahuila - Mexico | CÓDIGO PENAL DE COAHUILA DE ZARAGOZA | Excerpt of Coahuila's Criminal Code concerning title ten "of the crimes against animals that affect the right to a life free from violence." The criminal code of the state of Coahuila establishes the duty to respect all vertebrate non-human animals that are not considered a "pest" according to the law. It establishes penalties ranging from one to three years plus monetary fines in addition to the confiscation of all animals under the care of the person found guilty of committing animal cruelty crimes These acts include: mistreating a working animal by the use of instruments that cause unnecessary pain and suffering; practicing animal vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically necessary to preserve human life or health; and mutilating any part of the body of a living animal or perform surgery on it, without providing anesthesia. Under the Criminal Code, activities such as zoophilia and animal fighting in public or private settings are also prohibited. Veterinarians, caretakers, and people involved in commercial activities involving animals may, in addition to the penalties established in this code, be subject to suspension or disqualification for a period of one to five years from employment, position, profession, trade, authorization, license, commercialization, or any circumstance under which the crime was committed. | Statute | ||
| Excerpt Federal Criminal Code of Mexico | Código Penal Federal de Mexico | This excerpt contains the provisions of the Federal Code of Mexico within "Crimes Against the Environment and Environmental Management." It contains a dedicated chapter to biodiversity, where it gives special protection to wildlife. It does not mention protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). According to Article 1, this code applies to federal crimes committed within the country. | Statute | ||
| Exotic Pet Laws | Matthew Liebman |
Brief Overview of Exotic Pet Laws Matthew G. Liebman (2004)
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Exotic Pets Update (2013) | Drouet Martha |
Brief Summary of Exotic Pets Laws |
Topical Introduction | ||
| EXPANSION OF THE FLORIDA ANIMAL ANTI-CRUELTY STATUTE TO BETTER SERVE ANIMALS | Laura Wesolowski | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper will focus on animal use in transient, traveling exhibitions that do not have educational components. By nature, circuses, carnivals, and other traveling shows require the animals that are property to travel regularly and to perform for the public regularly. Researchers have found that this lifestyle is problematic for animals, in general, due to the living and traveling conditions that animals are subjected to as well as the pressures of performance of unnatural acts in unnatural environments. | Article | |
| Exporting Morality with Trade Restrictions: The Wrong Path to Animal Rights | Gary Miller | 34 Brook. J. Int'l L. 999 (2009) |
Part I of this Note will critique normative moral theory with respect to its fundamental role in animal welfare proselytizing, its applicability to legal theory, and its usefulness as a basis for legal decision making. Part II will discuss international trade disputes arising over morality-based domestic import restrictions in order to examine why the GATT has consistently been interpreted to err on the side of free trade and consumer choice. Finally, Part III will argue that the DCPA is not only an ineffective and unenforceable law but also potentially counterproductive to the goals of the Western animal welfare movement and overly costly to global trade infrastructure in light of more effective alternatives. |
Article | |
| Expte. N° HC-656/21 - Habeas Corpus en favor del Tortugo Jorge | Expte. N° HC-656/21 | Jorge is an 80-year-old turtle living in the Municipal Aquarium of Medoza, Argentina. In 2021, three animal lawyers filed a habeas corpus on behalf of Jorge, arguing a violation of the turtle’s right to his locomotive freedom and a violation of Mendoza’s law 7.887, 2018, which prohibits the exhibit of animals in circuses or other events. The lawyers stated that Jorge had to be relocated to a more natural environment where he could live the last years of his life, raising concerns for his age and health. After learning that the government is turning the aquarium into a biodiversity center and after consulting with several experts, the tribunal denied the Habeas Corpus as it found the controversy was moot. It also rejected the idea of releasing Jorge into the wild. However, it is important to mention that the tribunal did not oppose his relocation into a sanctuary so long as his physical integrity was protected. | Case | ||
| Eyrich v. Earl | 495 A.2d 1375 (N.J.Super.A.D.,1985) | 203 N.J.Super. 144 (N.J.Super.A.D.,1985) |
In this New York, the neighbors of a five-year-old child who was mauled to death by a leopard that was at a circus held on school property filed suit against the operators of the circus seeking compensation for emotional damages. On defendants' appeal, this court held that defendants were strictly liable to plaintiffs. The court first began with the proposition that wild animals are presumed to have a dangerous propensity and the keepers of such have been held strictly liable. Using a products liability analogy, the court found that as a matter of public policy, it would be 'unthinkable' to refuse to insulate individuals who put a defective car on the road and 'then tell one injured by a wild beast that he has no claim against those who put that beast on the road.' The judgment was affirmed. |
Case |
