Results
Displaying 6601 - 6610 of 6638
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |