Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANIMAL CONSORTIUM | David S. Favre and Thomas Dickinson | 84 Tenn. L. Rev. 893 (2017) | This article will show that sufficient relational interest can exist between a human and companion animal and that this interest is widely accepted in our culture; therefore, financial recovery for the disruption of this relationship is a fair burden to place upon actors in today's world. This proposal does not seek to give any legal rights to companion animals; instead, this is a proposal to allow the law to acknowledge the depth and reality of the bond between humans and animals that exists in millions of families across the country. First, this article sets out the existing categories of damage for recovery when a defendant's tortious actions result in the death of a companion animal. Integral to this discussion is the reality that companion animals are considered property. Courts most often are unwilling to extend financial recovery to include the emotional loss of the owner of an animal. Second, this article will examine the history of the concept of consortium to show how the legal system has come to accept that the compensable harm is not limited to economic consequences, nor is it limited to husband and wife relationships. Third, this article will present information to support the position that companion animals are emotionally and psychologically important to the human members of many families. Fourth, this article will show that animals have already jumped out of the property box in a number of fact patterns, and therefore, it is appropriate to raise their status in this context as well. Fifth, this article will consider the application of the concept of animal consortium in detail as an extension of the common law cause of action. Finally, acknowledging some of the difficulties that courts may have in implementing this proposal, a legislative draft is proposed to accomplish the recovery sought by this article. | Article |
| Veterinary Malpractice: Questions for the Owner | Favre David S. | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides several key questions a pet owner must ask him or herself prior to initiating a veterinary malpractice lawsuit. |
Article |
| Examining the Veterinary Client-Patient Relationship in the United States: Why the Abolition of the In-Person Examination Requirement is Warranted | Jeffrey P. Feldmann | 56 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 91 (2023) | This Note examines the development of VCPR law, the incorporation - or lack thereof - of telehealth into VCPR law across the United States, and considers VCPR effect on access to care. After discussing the state of the veterinary industry and the regulatory scheme of veterinary medicine, Part II assesses VCPR laws across the United States, establishing that there is general uniformity from state to state. In Part II, the Note juxtaposes human medicine's widespread acceptance of telehealth to establish valid doctor-patient relationships with relative absence of such acceptance of telehealth in veterinary medicine to establish valid VCPRs. Part III then discusses and analyzes existing litigation concerning VCPR law and telehealth measures in the Fifth Circuit and in California. The Note concludes by proposing more widespread adoption of telemedicine as a means to establish a VCPR in order to improve access to quality care for veterinarians, clients, and patients more closely aligned with human medicine. | Article |
| Scent lineups compared across eleven countries | Barbara Ferry, John J. Ensminger, Adee Schoon, Zbignev Bobrovskij, David Cant, Maciej Gawkowski, IIlkka Hormila, Pavel Kos, Ferenc Less, Elena Rodionova, Klim T. Sulimov, Leif Woidtke, Tadeusz Jezierski | A scent lineup is generally a procedure whereby a dog's alerting behavior is used to establish that the dog detects two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, as deriving from the same person. The aim of this article is to compare methodologies of using dogs in scent lineups as a means of identifying perpetrators of crimes. It is hoped that this comparative approach, looking at countries where the method is currently or has in the past been used, will help determine what issues should be addressed in order to assure that the scent lineup will have a future as a forensic technique. Participants from eleven countries—Belgium, The Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, and the U.S.—completed a survey questionnaire regarding key aspects of the scent lineup procedures used by the police in their countries. Although there was broad overlap on certain matters, such as the use of control and zero trials, collection of decoy scents from individuals of similar gender and race as the suspect, materials for holding scent, frequency of cleaning and changing stations, and use and timing of rewards, there were significant differences in the degree of blindness required, who calls an alert (handler or experimenter), and whether handlers can work with more than one dog. The gap between recommendations and results available from the scientific literature and procedures used in police practice was greater for some countries than others, even taking into account that some scientific methodologies might be expensive or impractical given agency resources. The authors make recommendations about how to go forward if scent lineups are to remain a valid forensic technique. | Article | |
| Shark Finning-Who Is The Real Predator? | Mallory Field | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper explores the demise of sharks due to the increased demand for shark-fin products. The current legal protections against shark finning are discussed, including CITES and IPOA-Sharks, and solutions for the future are presented. |
Article |
| 2001 Legislative Review | Alicia Finigan | 7 Animal L. 145 (2001) |
This article provides an overview of 2001 state and federal animal related legislation. |
Article |
| OBSTACLES TO LEGAL RIGHTS FOR ANIMALS CAN WE GET THERE FROM HERE? | Susan Finsen | 3 Animal L. i (1997) | This article gives a brief introduction regarding the obstacles to legal rights for animals. | Article |
| "No Animals Were Harmed . . .": Protecting Chimpanzees From Cruelty Behind The Curtain | Lorraine L. Fischer | 27 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 405 |
In this law review, Lorraine L. Fischer hopes to effect change in the way chimpanzees and other exotic animals are perceived in filmed media. Fischer argues that the exploitation of these animals is unacceptable because they (and other great apes) are not only sentient beings, but beings capable of suffering, forming relationships, expressing emotion, mourning death, communicating thoughts, and expressing love. Additionally, Fischer argues that since chimpanzees are a severely endangered species, using them as actors contradicts and offends the strong public policy of conservation and preservation that should be afforded to this precious species. To illustrate how laws fail to protect chimpanzees used in entertainment, this law review examines the Endangered Species Act, the Animal Welfare Act, and various state anti-cruelty laws. |
Article |
| Did United States v. Hayashi Fail to Provide a Safe Harbor for Marine Mammals Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act? | April Fisher and Amber A. Bell | 27 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 67 (1997) |
This article examines the holding in United States v. Hayashi and concludes that by narrowly defining what constitutes "harm" under the MMPA, the Ninth Circuit ignored the plain meaning of the term, the legislative history of the MMPA and the regulations interpreting the MMPA. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit's holding in Hayashi allows fishermen to harass marine mammals as long as the action does not seriously disrupt normal marine mammal behavior. |
Article |
| The Alaskan Wolf War: The Public Trust Doctrine Missing In Action | Edward A. Fitzgerald | 15 Animal L. 193 (2008) |
This article argues that the courts should have invoked Alaska’s public trust doctrine, which prevents the granting of preferences over state natural resources. The courts should have also rigorously examined the BOG’s wolf killing policies and protected the wolf as a valuable public trust resource. The BOG’s wolf killing policies have not been supported by the public, leading to ballot initiatives to protect the wolf. Congress is currently considering the Protect America’s Wildlife Act, which will prevent the same day airborne hunting of Alaska’s wolves. |
Article |