|Veterinary Malpractice||Rebecca Wisch||
Brief Summary of Veterinary Malpractice
|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 and D.C. 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.
|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|
|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|
|The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule||Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017||This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged.||Article|
|Brief Summary of Horsemeat for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This brief summary describes the history of horsemeat consumption, focusing specifically on the U.S. It analyzes the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that occurred in 2007 as a result of changes in federal appropriations. Recently, a change in appropriations brought the slaughter measure to the forefront. The legislative state of horse slaughter for human consumption remains uncertain.
|Detailed Discussion of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
The debate over horse slaughter is a composite of agricultural industry, animal welfare, constitutional, environmental, health, and regulatory concerns. Part II of this paper addresses the history of and cultural taboo ascribed to horsemeat consumption. Part III presents federal and state laws, administrative regulations and guidelines, major court cases, and proposed and pending legislation related to horse slaughter. Part IV describes associated issues, policy, and advocacy resulting from and effecting horse slaughter in the United States.