|Table of Significant Animal-related Cases from 2009||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This table gives summaries of some of the significant animal-related cases from 2009. Links are provided to the actual text of the cases that are summarized.
|Overview of Lost Dog Legal Issues||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This summary discusses the state laws that govern the status of a "lost dog." The common law rules regarding lost property are applied as well as the state "lost property" statutes.
|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.
|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|
|An Argument for the Basic Legal Rights of Farmed Animals||Steven M. Wise||106 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 133 (2008)||As legal things, nonhuman animals lack all legal rights and remain entirely the object of the rights held by us legal persons—that is, the beings with rights. Most legal protections for nonhuman animals remain indirect (mostly anti-cruelty statutes), enforceable only by public prosecutors. Even the Endangered Species Act requires a human plaintiff to have standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution. It has become clear that no meaningful percentage of nonhuman animals will ever be treated well or fairly until they attain some minimum degree of legal personhood—that is, until they achieve some minimum level of fundamental legal rights. In his article, Steven M. Wise argues for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals by relying upon bedrock principles of Western law: liberty and equality.||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|
|LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS||Steven M. Wise||2 Animal L. 179 (1996)||This article was adapted from remarks from Steven M. Wise at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals.||Article|
|How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe||Steven M. Wise||1 Animal L. 15 (1995)||The first in a series of articles by the author whose overall purpose is to explain why legal rights need not be restricted to human beings and why a handful of rights that protect fundamental interests of human beings should also protect the fundamental interests of such nonhuman animals as chimpanzees and bonobos. The second article in this series traces the development of the common law as it concerns the relationships between human and nonhuman animals from its beginnings in the Mesopotamian "law code" of the third and second millennia, B.C. until today.||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.
|Introduction to Animal Law Book||Steven M. Wise||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 7 (2017)||Steven M. Wise gives the introduction to Syracuse Law Review's Animal Law Book from 2017.||Article|