|Animal Law and Animal Rights on the Move in Sweden||Helena Striwing||8 Animal L. 93 (2001)||
Ms. Striwing, an attorney at law in Sweden, provides a glimpse into Swedish laws and practices affecting animals in that country. She discusses the development and characteristics of such laws and offers suggestions regarding implementation and enforcement that may also be utilized by other countries in their quests to afford animals greater legal protections. This essay will refrain from the classical approach of highlighting the philosophers and their views on animals and nature. It will instead delve into the court system of Sweden, and the laws and policies affecting animals in that country. The purpose of the essay is to highlight the developments, strengths, and weaknesses of Swedish animal law, in the hopes of giving guidance and inspiration to other societies in their quest for effective investigation, enforcement, prosecution, and punishment of animal crimes.
|A HOUSE ON FIRE: LINKING THE BIOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY CRISES||Kieran Suckling||6 Animal L. 193 (2000)||Mr. Suckling connects the linguistic diversity crisis with the loss of biodiversity and argues that the loss of one necessarily means the loss of another.||Article|
|CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT: THE CONSTITUTION AND ANIMALS||Mariann Sullivan||19 Animal L. 213 (2013)||This article provides the introduction to Volume 19, part 2.||Article|
|EMPOWERING MARKET REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH PRODUCT LABELING||Sean P. Sullivan||19 Animal L. 391 (2013)||In many Western nations, rising public concern about the welfare of agricultural animals is reflected in the adoption of direct regulatory standards governing the treatment of these animals. The United States has taken a different path, tending to rely on a “market-regulation” approach whereby consumers express their desire for specific welfare practices through their purchasing decisions. This Article explores the failure of market regulation and the welfare-preference paradox posed by consumers who express a strong preference for improved animal welfare in theory, but who simultaneously fail to demand heightened welfare standards in practice. It argues that market regulation is failing in this country because current animal-welfare labeling does not clearly or credibly disclose to consumers the actual treatment of agricultural animals. As a corollary, effective market regulation of agricultural animal welfare could be empowered simply by improving current animal-welfare labeling practices.||Article|
|An Animal is Not an Ipod||Diane Sullivan & Holly Vietzke||4 Journal of Animal Law 41 (2008)||
The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is often times the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Needless to say, awarding damages at fair market value serves as little or no deterrence for the tortfeasor. This is especially true in cases where the companion animal lacks pedigree or special training. However, some decisions have authorized human guardians of companion animals to plead and recover the “unique value” of the companion animal. Such decisions reflect a shift in the court’s view of companion animals, which acknowledges public policy concerns for the guardian of the companion animal. This article discusses the law in United States on companion animals and proposes legislative action in the state of Florida for the recovery of the “loss of companionship” for owners of companion animals.
|US- Puppy Mills - HSUS Speaks||Kathleen Summers||An article about the state of puppy mills in the US.||Article|
|Detailed Discussion of Police Shooting Pets Update||Jessica Swadow||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This paper will begin by outlining how legal claims for the wrongful shooting of dogs are brought in court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows individuals to sue for deprivation of civil rights by those acting under color of law. Associated defenses of qualified and municipal immunity will also be discussed. The paper then examines briefly how state claims may factor into this type of litigation. The next section focuses on how litigation involving the shooting of pets has evolved in the past ten years. It then concludes with an examination of how states and police departments are attempting to reduce such incidents and what, if anything, legislatures are implementing to address legal claims.||Article|
|Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets Update||Jessica Swadow||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This brief summary explores recent trends in cases involving the shooting of pets by police officers. The primary law under which such claims can be brought (42 U.S.C. §1983) is presented as well as defenses available to such actions. Finally, a short discussion on enhancement in training methods for officers and community strategies are provided.||Article|
|Police Shooting Pets Update||Jessica Swadow||
Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets Update
|Overview of Police Shooting Pets Update||Jesscia Swadow||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This overview explores recent trends in cases involving the shooting of pets by police officers. The primary law under which such claims can be brought (42 U.S.C. §1983) for constitutional violations is presented as well as defenses available to such actions. Finally, a short discussion on enhancement in training methods for officers and community strategies are provided.||Article|