Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The United Kingdom | Policy | ||||
| The United Kingdom (UK) | Alice Collinson |
Brief Summary of United Kingdom Animal Law |
Topical Introduction | ||
| THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS OR THE CREATION OF A NEW EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN SPECIES | Jean-Marc Neumann | 19 Animal L. 63 (2012) | This Essay is a translation of the author’s original French text. It examines the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights of 1978, which lays out fundamental rights for animals in fourteen articles. This Essay explores the origins of and influences behind the original Declaration, as well as details the changes which were brought to it in a revised version in 1989. It then examines the scope of the Declaration and why it has not had the far-reaching implications its authors once hoped for. Finally, this Essay questions what the Declaration means for the future of animal rights and whether the document will have any lasting impact. | Article | |
| The welfare of greyhounds in Australian racing: has the industry run its course? | Alexandra McEwan and Krishna Skandakumar | 6 AAPLJ 53 | Australia’s greyhound racing industry is reportedly the third largest in the world. Over fifty racetracks operate across the country, with the majority located in New South Wales. In 2009 the total 'stake money,' that is, the amount put at risk by punters, was $73,773 million nationwide. This article explores welfare issues in the greyhound industry, arguing that, despite recent regulatory reforms and industry efforts to improve welfare standards, there is sufficient evidence available to conclude Australia should follow the lead set by the USA and begin dismantling a sporting industry which has run its course. In short, this form of animal use can no longer be justified as 'necessary.' | Article | |
| The World Trade Organisation Rules: A Legal Analysis of Their Adverse Impact on Animal Welfare | Peter Stevenson | Journal of Animal Law |
An in-depth analysis of the language of WTO's GATT treaty requirements as they relate to state's attempts to provide for the welfare of animals. |
Article | |
| The World Trade Organization Rules: A Legal Analysis of their Adverse Impact on Animal Welfare | Peter Stevenson | 8 Animal L. 107 (2001) |
Mr. Stevenson analyzes the free trade rules of the World Trade Organisation and discusses their detrimental impact on certain measures designed to protect animals. Specifically, he discusses U.S. laws to safeguard dolphins and sea turtles, as well as proposed EU laws regarding leghold traps and cosmetic testing on animals. Mr. Stevenson provides an analysis of current WTO rule interpretation, identifies ways in which the rules should be reformed, and provides a less restrictive interpretation that would permit the existence of measures designed to improve animal welfare. |
Article | |
| Theis v. Yuba County Sheriff's Department | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 3006261 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) | The Plaintiffs allege that their cat, named Pizza, was unlawfully euthanized at Yuba County Animal Care Services shelter in Olivehurst, California on or about February 9, 2018. Pizza went missing on or about February 9, 2018 and Plaintiffs found out later that same day that a neighbor had found the cat and brought it to the Yuba County animal shelter. The Plaintiffs attempted to contact the shelter, but it had already closed for the evening. The next morning around 9:30 a.m., the Plaintiffs arrived at the shelter and learned that Pizza had been euthanized as early as 5:00 p.m. the night before. Defendant Barnhill, the shelter’s supervising officer, informed the Plaintiff’s that Pizza had been injured, however, the neighbor who brought the cat to the shelter without knowing it was the Plaintiffs’ described Pizza as looking healthy. The Plaintiffs contend that Pizza’s euthanization falls within an ongoing pattern and practice of abuse and failure to follow state and federal law. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on October 1, 2018. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff’s asserted four claims in their First Amended Complaint: (1) the failure to perform mandatory duties in violation of California Government Code section 815.6, (2) petition for a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, (3) violation of the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, (4) negligence under California common law. The Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and alleged that the Plaintiff’s did not plead facts sufficient to show that Barnhill engaged in unlawful conduct or to establish a substantive or procedural due process violation. The Court, however, granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as to the section 1983 claim. The Court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which were the Plaintiff’s first, second, and fourth claims since the Plaintiff’s had conceded that their federal claim by requesting to amend their complaint. As a result, the Court reviewed remaining claims to determine whether they may be included in any amended complaint or whether leave to amend would be futile. The Court determined that granting Plaintiff’s leave to file a second amended complaint would not be futile on all of their claims except for the petition for writ of mandate claim. California’s Civil Procedure Code section 1085 does not apply to federal courts and, therefore, the Plaintiff’s leave to amend this claim would be futile. Ultimately, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s third cause of action for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights be dismissed with leave to amend, the Plaintiff’s state law claims in their first, second, and fourth causes of action be dismissed with leave to amend to the extent consistent with the order, and denied the Defendant's motions to strike Plaintiffs' punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs were required to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the date the order was filed if they wished to amend their complaint. | Case | ||
| There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases | Lynn A. Epstein | 13 Animal Law 129 (2006) |
Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases. |
Article | |
| Think or be Damned: The Problematic Case of Higher Cognition in Animals and Legislation for Animal Welfare | Lesley J. Rogers and Gisela Kaplan | 12 Animal L. 151 (2005) |
Recent discoveries of higher cognitive abilities in some species of birds and mammals are bringing about radical changes in our attitudes to animals and will lead to changes in legislation for the protection of animals. We fully support these developments, but at the same time we recognize that the scientific study of higher cognition in animals has touched on only a small number of vertebrate species. Accordingly, we warn that calls to extend rights, or to at least better welfare protection, for the handful of species that have revealed their intelligence to us may be counterproductive. While this would improve the treatment of the selected few, be they birds or mammals, a vast majority of species, even closely related ones, will be left out. This may not be a particular problem if being left out is only a temporary state that can be changed as new information becomes available. But, in practice, those protected and not protected are separated by a barrier that can be more difficult to remove than it was to erect in the first place. We summarize the recent research on higher cognition from the position of active researchers in animal behavior and neuroscience. |
Article | |
| Thomas v. Stenberg | 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 24 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) | 2012 WL 1925657 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.); 206 Cal.App.4th 654 |
While driving his motorcycle down a private road that had easement access, the plaintiff was injured by a charging cow. Arguing the defendant had a duty to warn of the presence of an unconfined and inherently dangerous animal, the plaintiff brought a negligence and a premise liability suit against the defendant. Upon appeal, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant was strictly liable for the cow's actions; the court, therefore, ruled in favor of the defendant. |
Case |
