Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048 | Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0048 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons. |
Case | ||
| Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0552 | 2002 Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0552 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion clarifying a new provision in Chapter 822 of the Texas Health & Safety Code that requires all dangerous wild animals to be registered in the county in which they're located. Otherwise, possession of these animals is unlawful. |
Case | ||
| Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey | 201 F.3d 680 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2000) | 45 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1370, 28 Media L. Rep. 1481 |
Cattle ranchers in Texas sued the
The Oprah Winfrey Show
and one of its guests for knowingly and falsely depicting American beef as unsafe in the wake of the British panic over “Mad Cow Disease.” The matter was removed from state court to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment as a matter of law on all claims presented except the business disparagement cause of action, which was eventually rejected by a jury. The court alternately held that no knowingly false statements were made by the appellees. This court affirmed on this latter ground only, finding that the guest's statement and the producers' editing of the show did not violate the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act.
|
Case | |
| Thacker ex rel. Thacker v. Kroger Co. | 155 Fed.Appx. 946 (C.A.8 (Mo.),2005) | 2005 WL 3250075 |
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed district court decision that Thacker family failed to link an injury to ground beef on which the USDA requested a recall. |
Case | |
| The (Inter)national Strategy: An Ivory Trade Ban In The United States And China | Morgan V. Manley | 38 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1511 | This Note argues that a near-complete ban in ivory trade not only raises difficult domestic legal issues, but also does little to stop elephant poaching in Africa. Further, enacting a similar ban in China is not only unrealistic, but also would increase the illegal trade and, therefore, the slaughter of elephants in Africa. Part I explains the history of illegal ivory trade and describes the current legal environments in the United States and China. Part II presents the domestic legal and policy implications of an ivory ban, and analyzes the potential difficulties with implementing a similar ban in China. Part III argues that while the United States should stringently regulate the domestic ivory market, a near-complete ban is unreasonable. Further, a similar ban in China is not a practical solution; Chinese officials must consider strategies to optimize existing laws and gain public support. | Article | |
| The Alaskan Wolf War: The Public Trust Doctrine Missing In Action | Edward A. Fitzgerald | 15 Animal L. 193 (2008) |
This article argues that the courts should have invoked Alaska’s public trust doctrine, which prevents the granting of preferences over state natural resources. The courts should have also rigorously examined the BOG’s wolf killing policies and protected the wolf as a valuable public trust resource. The BOG’s wolf killing policies have not been supported by the public, leading to ballot initiatives to protect the wolf. Congress is currently considering the Protect America’s Wildlife Act, which will prevent the same day airborne hunting of Alaska’s wolves. |
Article | |
| THE ANIMAL COMPANION PUZZLE: A WORTH UNKNOWN THOUGH HEIGHT TAKEN | Ronald B. Lansing | 18 Animal L. 105 (2011) |
Folks come to law smithies with tort troubles. Those troubles follow this general scenario: Allegedly, someone has breached a duty owed that damaged another’s right, thus calling for a duty of smithies to fix it. In this nation’s separation of government powers, that scenario initiates a job for the judicial branch, where courts are the shop smithies. Within their job description and among its many work orders lies the issue of pet loss remedy. That remedy will be the focus of this Essay; but first, all remedy of any kind must be put in context. |
Article | |
| The Animal Question: The Key to Coming to Terms with Nature | Jim Mason | 13 Animal Law 197 (2007) |
In this Introduction to Volume 13, Part 2 of Animal Law, the author considers the "Animal Question" - the shorthand term "for all of those difficult questions about our views of, and relations with,nonhuman animals." |
Article | |
| THE ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE AND THE EXPANSION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW PROTECTING ANIMALS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY FAIL AND SUCCEED? | Peter Sankoff | 18 Animal L. 281 (2012) |
This Article uses the theory of deliberative democracy, as developed by Jürgen Habermas and others, to suggest that public discourse is essential to encouraging democratic change in animal welfare law. The author examines the legal regimes of Canada and New Zealand to determine which country better facilitates a public dialogue about the treatment of animals. The Article concludes that, while Canada has a number of laws that ostensibly protect animals, New Zealand’s regime is much better at creating the public discourse required to meaningfully advance animal protection. The author does not suggest that New Zealand’s regime is perfect; rather, New Zealand’s model is preferable to Canada’s because it allows the public to meaningfully engage in laws affecting animals at regular intervals. In Canada, generating discussion in government about animal welfare is too often left to the whim of legislators. Due to New Zealand’s model of encouraging and requiring public discourse, its protection laws have begun to surpass those of Canada, and there is reason to believe this will continue. Encouraging public discourse about our assumptions about animals fosters hope for meaningful progress in their lives. |
Article | |
| The Animal Welfare Act | Henry Cohen | 2 Journal of Animal Law 12 (2006) |
The Animal Welfare Act is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to "promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors." This article summarizes the original 1966 act, all its amendments, and bills to amend it that are pending in the 109th Congress. |
Article |