Results
Title | Author | Citation | Summary | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
Detailed Discussion of Utah Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in Utah.Utah does not have a law dealing with great apes, but addresses use and possession through regulations issued under the authority of the state’s Wildlife Resources Code. Additionally, only some great apes are protected under Utah’s anti-cruelty laws. The law prohibits both affirmative acts of cruelty such as torture or unjustified killing, and the failure to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody. Exceptions to the definition of “animal” exclude those animals owned or kept by a AZAA accredited zoological park or temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the USDA. | Article |
Table of State Rabies Laws Concerning Cats | Rebecca F. Wisch (updated by Alexis Andrews) | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This table provides links to states that require vaccination against rabies for cats. The table details the age at which vaccination is required and penalties for failure to vaccinate. The table only covers laws and regulations for cats residing within a state and does not deal with regulations concerning the importation of cats from outside a state. Note that states without a law or regulation listed may still have local ordinances that require rabies vaccination for cats; it is imperative to check city/county laws to ensure compliance. | Topic Table |
State Holding Period Laws for Impounded Animals | Rebecca F. Wisch and Ashley Dillingham | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Holding period laws are state requirements that determine how long an impounded animal must be “held” before it is able to be released or euthanized. Typically, these laws give owners anywhere between three and ten days to redeem the animal before the animal can be placed for adoption, sold, or euthanized. The majority of states require a holding period of three to five days. In all of the states with holding laws, the decision of what happens to the animal after the holding period has passed is left solely up to the animal shelter or organization that has impounded the animal. |
Topic Table |
Table of Dog Bite Strict Liability Statutes | Rebecca F. Wisch and Diamond Conley | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Approximately 36 states have strict liability laws for dog bites. This table illustrates the primary components of each state's strict liability law such as animal covered, type of injury, place injury occurs, and exceptions under the law. The table does not discuss dangerous dog laws (although you can find a table of these laws under Legal Topics, Comparative Tables in the navigation bar). | Topic Table |
LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | Steven M. Wise | 17 Animal L. 1 (2010) |
The author gives an overview of the progress of the Nonhuman Rights Project. |
Article |
RECOVERY OF COMMON LAW DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, LOSS OF SOCIETY, AND LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF A COMPANION ANIMAL | Steven M. Wise | 4 Animal L. 33 (1998) | Mr. Wise analyzes experiential recognition of the bond that exists between human companions and companion animals in the context of possible recovery of tort damages for the wrongful death of a companion animal. He demonstrates that companion animals are often seen by their human companions as members of the family (holding much the same status as children). He discusses historical aspects of the common law as they relate to current tort law in such cases and examines the tension that exists between principle and policy. | Article |
ANIMAL LAW-THE CASEBOOK | Steven M. Wise | 6 Animal L. 251 (2000) | This is a book review of the casebook "Animal Law." | Article |
ANIMAL THING TO ANIMAL PERSON-THOUGHTS ON TIME, PLACE, AND THEORIES | Steven M. Wise | 5 Animal L. 61 (1999) | The rule that "animals are property," and do not merit legal rights, is ingrained in the law of English-speaking countries. Challenges to this rule must be brought in strategic, thoughtful, sensitive, sophisticated, and coordinated ways. This essay offers seven related strategic considerations for anyone who wishes to battle the "animals as property" rule. | Article |
Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals | Steven M. Wise | 7 Animal L. 9 (2001) |
This article presents the remarks of Steven M. Wise on the status of animals in the legal system. |
Article |
THUNDER WITHOUT RAIN: A REVIEW/COMMENTARY OF GARY L. FRANCIONE'S RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER: THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT | Steven M. Wise | 3 Animal L. 45 (1997) | In Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Professor Gary L. Francione argues that the modern animal rights movement is propelled similarly like the American abolitionist movement. "New Welfarists," he claims, fruitlessly pursue the goal of ending the exploitation of nonhuman animals through measures that better their welfare but cannot result in what matters most, the abolition of their legal status as property. In this essay, Steven Wise argues that New Welfarism does not contain a "structural defect," but a "structural inconsistency" that is necessary to achieve Gary Francione's goal of abolishing the property status of nonhuman animals in a manner consistent with the moral rights of nonhuman animals. | Article |