Results
Displaying 6231 - 6240 of 6637
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-Horse Slaughter Legislation: Bad for Horses, Bad for Society | Laura Jane Durfee | 84 Ind. L.J. 353 (Winter, 2009) |
Part I of this Note will discuss the domestic horse slaughter industry. It will examine what types of horses are sent to slaughterhouses and by whom, as well as how slaughterhouses operate. Part II will discuss the current state of horse slaughter legislation and the legislative histories that led to the current situation. Part III will discuss the forecast for equine welfare and will explain why the closure of the U.S. equine slaughter industry is detrimental to equine welfare, and Part IV will discuss the negative economic effects that will be felt by the abolition of the domestic slaughter industry. This Note concludes by calling for the repeal of state laws criminalizing the slaughter of horses for human consumption, the reopening of equine slaughterhouses in the United States, and the rejection of the proposed Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008. |
Article | |
| Anti-cruelty laws that restrain future ownership of animals | This map surveys state laws that allow sentencing courts to restrict future ownership or possession of animals by those convicted of animal cruelty, commonly called "Possession Bans." To date (2024), it appears that 39 states have such laws. Generally, these laws apply only to felony convictions except for a couple states. With some state laws like Indiana, Missouri, and Texas, the possession ban covers only the animals who were subject to the cruelty and any other animals possessed by defendant at the time of the offense. Kansas' law makes those convicted of dogfighting who own dogs within five years of conviction a separate crime. Uniquely, Kentucky's laws restrain ownership if the crime involved sexual assault of an animal or if the animal at issue was an equine. The law does not prevent ownership of future animals. Most laws do address the issue of future animals, though. The most common number of years under which ownership of animals is enjoined by the court is five (5) years. However, California allows ten (10) years for a felony conviction and Delaware expands this to fifteen (15) years. Several states including Maine, Michigan, and Washington enable courts to impose permanent relinquishment of the ability to own or possess animals. The majority of states allow the sentencing court to affix a “reasonable” term of restricted ownership. Some states describe this as a term the judge feels “necessary” or “appropriate.” A few states even limit the ability of the defendant to work with animals in current or future jobs for certain convictions. These laws are distinguished from pre-conviction forfeiture laws that authorize law enforcement or humane officers to impound animals subject to suspected cruel treatment during the pendency of the proceedings. | State map | |||
| ANSON v. DWIGHT | 18 Iowa 241 (1865) | 1865 WL 103 (Iowa) |
This case involved the killing of a dog by defendant's minor son. While the issues on appeal were mostly procedural, the court did find that dogs belong to a class of personal property for which a witness can testify as to their value. |
Case | |
| ANOTHER WEAPON FOR COMBATING FAMILY VIOLENCE: PREVENTION OF ANIMAL ABUSE | Charlotte A. Lacroix | 4 Animal L. 1 (1998) | In this article, the author postulates that there is more than a mere coincidence between various forms of family violence. Furthermore, that acts of cruelty towards family pets are a form of family violence that has been largely unrecognized by the legal community. Admitting that much research still needs to be done to establish that there is a link between abuse towards people and abuse towards animals, the author invites the reader to consider this multi-victim approach to family violence and offers the strengthening of animal cruelty laws as a solution to this grave societal problem. | Article | |
| Anne Arundel County v. Reeves | 252 A.3d 921 (Md., 2021) | 474 Md. 46 (Md., 2021) | This Maryland case examines the scope of compensatory damages available forf the tortious injury or death of a pet under Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. (“CJP”) § 11-110, a law that allow pet owner to recover damages for the tort-based death or injury of their pet up to a capped level. The incident giving rise to this case occurred when Anne Arundel County Police Officer Rodney Price shot Micheal Reeves' dog in the front yard of Mr. Reeves' home. Officer Price was going door-to-door inquiring with residents after a recent spate of burglaries. Mr. Reeves' dog Vern burst from the front storm door and put his paw on the officer's forearm. While Officer Price stepped back and pushed the dog away, he testified that he did not vocalize any commands to the dog at that time, and, instead, decided to shoot the dog. Testimony by a veterinary pathologist at trial revealed that, if the dog were going for the officer's face as Price testified, this would have been improbable based on the dog's size as compared to the officer. Further, there was no dirt on that area of the officer's arm/chest nor any marks from the dog's paws. After a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Mr. Reeves for $10,000 for the trespass to chattel claim, and $500,000 in economic damages and $750,000 in noneconomic damages for the gross negligence claim. The circuit court then reduced the gross negligence damages to $200,000 pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”). CJP § 5-301 et seq. The circuit court also reduced the trespass to chattel damages to $7,500 pursuant to the then-applicable damages cap in CJP § 11-110.1. The Court of Special Appeals held in an unreported divided decision that the statute did not bar recovery of noneconomic damages. On appeal here, this court now holds that CJP § 11-110 limits the recovery for compensatory damages to the amount specified by that statute and does not allow for recovery of noneconomic compensatory damages. And while the court found there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Officer Price was grossly negligent, it also held that Mr. Reeves could not recover these damages due to Maryland's single recovery rule. As a matter of first impression, this court found CJP § 11-110's plain language evinces an intent to exclude those things not expressed in the statute. In other words, because the legislature defined the specific types of compensatory damages it allows, it intended to exclude other forms of damages like noneconomic damages. Further, the court found the plaintiff's reading of the statute "illogical" because economic damages would be capped, but yet noneconomic damages would not be. Thus, it would be up to the General Assembly to expressly provide for noneconomic damages in amendments to the statute. The court ultimately concluded that the statute defines and caps the recovery of compensatory damages in the case of the tortious death or injury of a pet and the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The dissent noted the majority decision created a "double anomaly" in Maryland law by capping damages for victims of a tortfeasor who kills their dog but allowing a fraudster who intentionally tricks a family into selling a painting of their dog unlimited damages. Further, the dissent argued the majority ignored both judicial and ethical trends regarding pets in society and disregards the legislative debate when the statute was re-enacted showing an intent to include higher damages amounts. | Case | |
| Anna Guha, Susan Mary Jackson, Christy Ann Morgan, Plaintiffs, v. Cloughery Packing LLC dba Farmer John; Corcpork, Inc., a Calif | This case involves an action by plaintiffs, consumers who have eaten pork from defendant's company, against defendant pork-producers under California's anti-cruelty and unlawful business practices laws. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant's use of gestation crates for pregnant sows is illegal under California Penal Code Section 597t (a section that requires anyone who keeps an animal confined in an enclosed area must provide it with an adequate exercise area). Thus, defendants' violation of 597t provides a predicate for violation under California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200, better known as the unlawful business or practice act. Further, plaintiffs contend that the Farmer John brand misleads reasonable consumers into believing that such pork products are produced in a humane fashion. Farmer John's parent company, Hormel Foods, states in its annual report that it has a "zero tolerance" for the inhumane treatment of animals. | Pleading | |||
| Animals v. Animals: A False Choice | Wendy Anderson and Amy Vaniotis | ABA Animal Law Committee Newsletter |
This article examines the recent policy trend that pits animal against animal. In particular, the article focuses on the argument that feral cats are a major contributing factor to the demise of many wild bird species. The authors contend that human population growth and encroachment into wildlife habitat is the root cause of species loss, and our attempt to blame an adaptive species like the cat avoids responsibility. Further, the authors suggest that animal lawyers in particular must be aware of this "diversionary tactic" and attempt to refocus the policy debate on the real causes of animal death. (Reprinted with permission.) |
Article | |
| Animals Used in Entertainment |
Circuses and the Laws Governing Them
|
Policy | |||
| Animals in Film | Vincent Rizzo |
Brief Summary of Laws Concerning Animals in Film Media |
Topical Introduction | ||
| Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing Them | Anastasia Niedrich | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper provides a detailed analysis of the federal, state, and international laws that affect circus animals. It also focuses specific attention on three species (primates, elephants, and big cats) that are a special concern for circuses. The threats facing circus animals themselves and the audience members who attend circuses are outlined. Finally, several other countries' laws regarding circuses are presented as a comparison to U.S. law. | Article |
