Animal Law in a Nutshell
Authors:
Waisman, Sonia S. / Frasch, Pamela D. / Hessler, Katherine M.
Edition:
3rd
Copyright Date:
2021
23 chapters
have results for animal law
Chapter 1 Introduction 5 results
- Laws protecting, impacting, regulating, and controlling animals have been an integral part of American jurisprudence since the very early days of colonization. However, the distinct field now known as “Animal Law” is a relatively new development. Animal Law brings together statutes and cases from multiple fields of law that consider, at their core, the interests of animals or the interests of humans with respect to animals. The way in which the law defines and treats animals often has depended on prevailing public attitudes about morality and economics. Although the role of animals and societal perceptions of them have changed over time, those factors remain at work in modern statutes and litigation. As a result, a particular animal may receive more or less protection under our laws depending on that animal’s role in society. For example, a mouse who is a companion animal will enjoy substantial protection, while that same mouse in a research facility is virtually unprotected.
- When the authors of this Nutshell first began teaching animal law in the mid-1990s, only a handful of other American law schools offered an animal law course. Today, there are well over 150 American Bar Association accredited law schools with at least one animal law course. During the same twenty-five-year period, we have seen similar dramatic growth in the number of city, state, regional, and national bar association animal law committees and sections and the number of legal periodicals devoted to animal law. Equally impressive are the number of animal law textbooks and other resources available to students and practitioners alike who wish to deepen their understanding of this area of law. It is hard to know precisely what has prompted this significant growth, but some commentators believe it is due to our rapidly evolving understanding of animals as complex beings with their own interests worthy of protection. Other commentators point to the changing nature of families in the...
- To cover this highly interdisciplinary field of law, this Nutshell is organized according to the individual disciplines as they apply to animals or intersect with animal-related issues. Due to the overlap in issues that can arise in various contexts, such as constitutional challenges, for example, those issues appear in multiple chapters. Similarly, there is interplay between tort causes of action and the remedies available for them.
- Given the dynamic nature of Animal Law, this book necessarily has touched on only the main areas of concern for students and practitioners. In order to keep this book to one volume, we had to make difficult decisions regarding what to include and what to omit. This was a frustrating exercise for us, and we understand that some readers may wish that their favorite area of Animal Law had been covered more completely in this book. For those readers, we encourage you to continue your study and research. Even the most cursory search on the internet will yield multiple excellent resources for you to learn more about your particular area of interest. In addition, at the conclusion of each chapter we include suggested readings designed to guide further research.
- We hope you enjoy learning more about this fascinating area of law.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 11 Farmed Animals 118 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The primary state method of regulating the conditions and treatment of animals is the anti-cruelty statute. For more on such statutes, see Chapter 3. However, state anti-cruelty laws generally exempt either farmed animals or all practices that are customary in raising them. Additionally, state anti-cruelty laws may define “animal” to exclude farmed animals, so they are not covered in the first instance.
- Advocates seeking to improve conditions of farmed animals have achieved some success in recent years regarding egg production, veal, and gestation crates, as discussed earlier in this chapter. However, on the whole, regulation relating to the conditions of farmed animals has changed only minimally for some animals and not at all for most animals. Importantly, advocates are barred from bringing an action where they lack standing. Constitutional standing is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9. Subsection A below discusses the application of standing in actions to improve conditions of farmed animals. Additionally, federal laws may preempt state laws that seek to improve conditions for farmed animals. Finally, some states have passed “ag-gag” laws that prohibit animal advocates from even documenting abuse of farmed animals.
- Generally, states lack laws or regulations applicable to farmed animals, and often explicitly exempt farmed animals from legal protections that apply to other categories of animals. In fact, state laws are striking in their breadth of exemptions and the acceptance of both traditional and modern husbandry practices. After addressing the various types of exemptions state statutes may have, this section reviews some affirmative protection available, such as state humane slaughter acts. States also may have statutory provisions specific to certain practices or products that may impact the rearing or slaughter of farmed animals.
- This chapter discusses the operation of state and federal laws regarding farmed animals. It first examines the extent of state exemptions of farming practices from anti-cruelty statutes and then considers some additional causes of action available at the state level. Moving to the federal level, this chapter covers a variety of national laws, a few of which pertain directly to farmed animals and others that are used to address the environmental and human health impacts of modern industrial farming practices. Finally, although the use of animals in agribusiness is an increasing area of focus for animal, environmental, and public health advocates, there are substantial barriers to improving conditions for farmed animals, and this chapter surveys them.
- farmed animals have increased and tend to emphasize the disparity between the claims of food producers and the actual conditions in which animals are raised and slaughtered. Plaintiffs have brought suits for false advertising and violations of labeling laws to call attention to, and end, various animal abuse practices associated with food production.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2 Defining “Animal” 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Unwarranted Discrepancies in the Advancement of Animal Law: The Growing Disparity in Protection Between Companion Animals and Agricultural Animals
- Dogs and cats are perhaps the quintessential companion animals, and sometimes are called “domestic” animals. Yet this was not always the case. Historically, “domestic” animals were generally farm and working animals and were recognized as having “intrinsic” value under common law. For example, in , the anti-cruelty statute at issue defined “domestic animal” to mean “any equine animal, bovine animal, sheep, goat and pig.” The court refused to expand it to include cats, relying on common law to conclude that the omission of cats from the definition was not an oversight because cats had no intrinsic value. For more on the intrinsic value of companion animals, see Chapter 4. Years later, another court applied what it viewed as a “practical interpretation” of similar language to conclude that because a dog is “commonly characterized as a domestic animal,” dogs were ...of a criminal statute that prohibited harboring dangerous dogs, applicable when a dog has injured “a domestic animal”...
- John H. Ingham, The Law of Animals: A Treatise on Property in Animal Wild and Domestic and the Rights and Responsibilities Arising Therefrom
- The question of whether an animal is categorized as companion, domestic, wild, exotic, livestock, or domesticated animal under a given statute is often the subject of judicial interpretation, given that the terms can overlap and be quite confusing, as different state statutes use different terms to refer to the same species of animal. Likewise, within a state and depending on the context, the same animal can be defined differently under different laws. For example, a pig or a horse may be a companion animal under anti-cruelty provisions, but also livestock under provisions regulating agribusiness. Also, state legislatures may re-classify animals so that new statutory schemes apply to certain categories of animals. For example, in Missouri, ostriches were re-classified under state statute from exotic animals to livestock or farm animals. . If a statute does not contain an express definition for a species of animal, courts may analogize the traits of the animal in question to the...
- Whenever animals are determined to be livestock, they receive much less protection in the form of criminal anti-cruelty statutes and other animal protection laws, and generally are regulated separately by the state, as discussed in Chapter 11. Farmed animals are often the subject of civil suits regarding contracts for purchase, veterinary malpractice, and product liability.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15 International Animal Law 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Globalization and Animal Law: Comparative Law, International Law and International Trade
- The EU substantially affects the global market for animal products, presently leading the way for higher animal welfare standards in many areas. While its laws and regulations relating to animals are far from perfect, and animal advocates strive to improve them, the EU remains at the international forefront of animal protection.
- While laws relating to animals exist worldwide, different countries offer differing levels of protection in various contexts. Given an increasingly global economy, countries also come together in agreements to, for example, manage wildlife populations and decide how to govern trade, including trade in animal-based products. This chapter provides an introduction to comparative animal law through discussion of legislation relating to animals in China and the European Union—which both have significant global influence—and discuss selected international agreements that affect animals.
- International Issues in Animal Law: The Impact of International Environmental and Economic Law upon Animal Interests and Advocacy
- A Worldview of Animal Law
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Criminal Law 198 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Animal cruelty investigations resemble investigations of crimes against humans, but they differ in certain key aspects due to animals’ inability to recount events and sometimes due to vague or outdated statutory provisions. Particularly in cases of extreme abuse, an animal cruelty investigation can be very comprehensive, involving DNA testing, documenting the crime scene, performing necropsies on deceased animals to determine the cause(s) of death, and other investigatory techniques commonly used by investigators in crimes against humans. These investigative steps are especially important in animal abuse cases because the animal victim, even if alive, cannot describe the abuse. Animal cruelty investigations are likely to involve experts such as veterinarians and pathologists. Veterinarians are particularly important as they can also establish the appropriate standard of care by which to gauge the cruelty or neglect ( , how much a healthy animal should weigh, how long this animal...
- Depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of a particular case, in addition to the prosecutor, there may be a variety of police officers, humane investigators, animal control officers, veterinarians, wildlife rehabilitators, or other experts involved in investigating and prosecuting an animal cruelty case. These officers and professionals can also advise a private individual on the appropriate method for reporting animal abuse in a particular jurisdiction. Often, animal advocacy organizations, such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, are instrumental in assisting law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of a case. In particularly egregious cases, media outlets can bring the appropriate officials’ attention to the situation. In most jurisdictions, however, it is best for an individual with information regarding a possible animal abuse case to report it to local police, animal control, or the local humane society shelter or organization.
- Care for animals who are victims of abuse can be costly; forfeiture and cost of care bonds address the problem of how to care for an animal in custody. Cost of care bonds require the defendant to pay for the animal’s care while in custody in order to maintain ownership of the animal. Forfeiture of an animal involves divesting the defendant of ownership so the animal can be placed in a safe and permanent home. Due to animals’ property status under the law, requiring a defendant to forfeit an animal is a taking without compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because it is a taking, forfeiture requires notice and a hearing, although the requirements for both vary by state.
- However, many states have enacted sentencing laws limiting the number of punishable offenses for the same conduct occurring within one criminal episode to the number of individual victims. . In those states that consider animal cruelty to be a crime against the state, defendants may argue that there is only one victim, the state, and thus, the defendant may be penalized only once for the offending conduct, regardless of the number of animals injured. Prosecutors, in turn, may counter that animals constitute victims for anti-merger purposes, relying on applicable rules of construction, legislative history, and relevant statutes, such as those indicating that the primary focus of modern anti-cruelty laws is the well-being of individual animals, rather than protection of their owners or the general public. (reversing merger of twenty counts of animal neglect on the grounds that “the underlying substantive criminal statute . . . protects individual animals . . . . In adopting that...
- Alexis C. Fox, Using Special Masters to Advance the Goals of Animal Protection Laws, 15 Animal L. 87 (2009)
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13 Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Stephen K. Otto & Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2019 U.S.
- Federal laws apply if an activity takes place on federal property, or if the animal involved is protected by a federal statute, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For more on federal laws affecting animals, see Chapter 10.
- Hunting laws and regulations apply to wild animals and generally not to captive game animals. In a case involving domesticated deer, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the deer were not subject to state hunting laws. The court held that wild animals belong to the state unless they are kept captive, in which case the individual who keeps the animals has a qualified property right in them that is lost if the animals return to their wild state.
- In addition to state regulations regarding hunting, trapping and fishing, certain federal statutes protecting wild animals impose additional limitations and requirements. (Selected federal statutes protecting wild animals are discussed in Chapter 10.) In a case analyzing the permitting requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, a court rejected a defendant’s claim that these Acts violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the defendant was not a member of a recognized Native American tribe or religion. Under the MBTA, Native Americans can possess and trade animals (or elements of animals, such as feathers) without a permit, but because the defendant was not a Native American, he was required to comply with the federal permitting requirements. . Federal laws prohibit certain hunting and fishing practices as well. For example, the Airborne Hunting Act makes it illegal to shoot or harass any bird, fish, or other animal
- The strict liability nature of license and tagging requirements can work against people who protest hunting—if they do not have a license or tags they cannot legally possess wild animals. Because the definition of “take” encompasses more than killing or physical possession of an animal, protesters may be charged with hunting without a license if they harass, pursue, rescue (even a wounded animal), or otherwise interfere with animals.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10 Selected Federal Wildlife Laws 69 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Lacey Act applies to “fish and wildlife” which it defines as including any wild animal, dead or alive. . This law has a very broad definition of “wild animal” that includes even undomesticated animals bred in captivity. Congress’s inclusion of animals bred in captivity comports with its stated aim of addressing the market for poached animals and not merely the act of poaching, because as long as there is a market for animals commonly found in the wild, it is reasonable to conclude that poaching will continue. Additionally, the Lacey Act includes as “animals” invertebrates, birds, reptiles, and other species not included in the definition of “animal” in other state and federal laws (For more on the legal definition of “animal,” see Chapter 2.)
- As you have seen in other chapters, many of the laws and regulations relating to animals are found at the state level. For example, states generally are responsible for regulating domestic, farmed, and wild animals. Nevertheless, there also are a substantial number of federal laws relating to animals, and particularly to wildlife. This chapter briefly outlines and presents case law arising from a few of the major federal statutes that commonly impact the actions of individuals, organizations, and companies in relation to wild animals: the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Wild Horses and Burros Act, Lacey Act, Animal Damage Control Act, and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
- The table below provides a brief overview of selected federal laws that protect wild animals. For a comprehensive list of federal animal law statutes as of 2010, see
- If the agency approves adoption of certain animals, it must ensure the animals will not be commercially exploited. The WHBA allows qualified individuals to adopt animals only if they can assure humane treatment and care. When title is transferred, the animals lose their status as “free-roaming” under the WHBA. In a suit to enjoin the adoptions of animals for slaughter or exploitation, a court held that if an agency is aware of the intention to commercially exploit the animals after adoption, the agency has a duty to deny adoption. If adoption is not possible, the agency must humanely destroy excess animals and cannot delegate that obligation to others through placement with unqualified persons through the adoption program.
- , was originally passed in 1900 to reduce the wholesale slaughter of wild animals for commercial purposes. . This law has three main provisions: (1) it forbids the willful disturbance of animals or their nests, as well as the killing of any animal within an area set aside under any law; (2) it forbids the importation of specific species; and (3) it prohibits the use of aircraft, motor vehicles, and poison to kill wild horses and burros. The Lacey Act was substantially amended in 1981 to address wildlife trafficking. Its amendments, , make violating state hunting laws and crossing state or national boundaries for that purpose a federal offense. Congress intended the Lacey Act to gradually “dry up” the market for poached animals.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Wills and Trusts 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Traditionally, the property status of animals precluded them from being beneficiaries upon their owner’s death. However, owners are now increasingly able to provide for their animals using trust or probate provisions. In construing such provisions, many of the traditional requirements, restrictions, and interpretive canons found in will and trust law remain applicable. Commonly regulated or litigated issues surrounding wills and trusts to benefit animals include the eligibility of an animal to be a beneficiary, the disposition of the animal or animals immediately after the testator’s or trustor’s death, life expectancy and state law regarding duration of benefits, the amount necessary to provide for the life span of the animal, and the enforceability of the provisions under state statutory and case law. Custody disputes can arise in probate
- One court, when faced with a will provision leaving property directly to an animal, found that the gift was void because an animal could not be a beneficiary. As such, the property passed according to intestacy laws. . In response to such rulings, some states’ animal trust statutes now allow owners to provide for their animals without naming them as direct beneficiaries.
- Gerry Beyer, Pet Animals: What Happens when their Humans Die?, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 617 (2000)
- A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
- Eligible Animals: The trust must designate the animal beneficiaries. An animal may need to be a “pet” or “domestic” animal, as under the New York, California, and Oklahoma statutes. Such requirements may limit the types of animals eligible to be beneficiaries. For more on the definitions of such terms outside the context of probate statutes, see Chapter 2. In contrast to the limitations in those states, Washington allows trustors to designate any nonhuman vertebrate animal in a trust instrument. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas all require the animal to be alive at the trustor’s death.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14 Animal Activism 53 results (showing 5 best matches)
- An increase in activism and direct action, particularly with respect to farmed animals, research, and hunting, has resulted in the enactment of some statutes targeting the behavior of animal rights activists. Litigation and controversy in this area commonly focus on state and federal constitutional protections, hunter harassment statutes, SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits and legislation, claims of animal terrorism (based on the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and its successor, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), and allegations of criminal behavior, including vandalism and the illegal release of animals from farm or research facilities (often pursuant to state statutes colloquially termed “ag-gag” laws). This chapter provides a brief survey of the protections afforded to activists generally, and the way in which those protections are specifically limited by hunter harassment laws and federal and state laws regulating speech and protecting animal...
- (contextualizes ag-gag statutes within statutory developments protective of animal-using industries, namely agricultural disparagement laws, AEPA, and AETA; argues that such laws represent a continuum of strategies aimed at hampering pro-animal efforts); Alicia Prygoski,
- Framed by their proponents as measures to protect the commercial interests of those who use animals in agriculture and research, and decried by their opponents as an attempt to silence (or “gag”—hence the colloquial term “ag-gag” laws) whistleblowing and stifle public debate regarding farmed animal conditions, ag-gag laws criminalize certain behavior using some combination of three statutory strategies. Statutes focused on covert documentation of conditions at animal agribusiness facilities bar recording images or sound at such facilities without the owners’ consent. Ag-gag laws that enable these facilities to more easily avoid hiring undercover reporters or animal activists prohibit agricultural job applicants from misrepresenting themselves while seeking employment.
- The Church of Animal Liberation:
- Intentionally impeding lawful taking of an animal by disrupting the animal, the individual, or the environment; making loud noises or gestures or placing baits to affect animals or the individual hunter; guilty of a lesser offense for entering or remaining in designated hunting areas of private or public land with a disruptive purpose.
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 2 results
- We would also like to thank those who have supported us in this project from the very beginning and without whom it might not have been completed. We are sincerely grateful to former Dean Robert Klonoff for his support of this work and that of the Center for Animal Law Studies at the Lewis & Clark Law School. Additionally, it is not possible to engage in serious animal law work without owing a large debt of gratitude to Joyce Tischler, whose foundational work has created a path for so many to follow, and whose continued dedication and gracious assistance to so many of us inures to the growth of the field of animal law as well as to the benefit of the animals on whose behalf we work.
- This third edition would not have been possible without the assistance of our law clerk, Karen Martens. We also want to acknowledge Professors Rajesh Reddy and David Rosengard. They provided invaluable insight and expertise adding immensely to the project.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Remedies for Harm Done to Animals 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Remedies in cases arising out of tortious harm to companion animals are complicated for many of the same reasons described in Chapter 4. First and foremost, the property status of animals under the law greatly influences the remedies available for harm done to them. As a preliminary matter, because of this property status, remedies do not flow directly to the actual victim of the tortious conduct—the animals themselves. Instead, the remedies flow to the human owners or caregivers. Second, the type of animals harmed also is critical in determining appropriate and available remedies. Unlike animals maintained for commercial uses (where a market value for a harmed animal is likely to be more readily ascertainable), companion animals often are perceived and treated as family members by their owners or caretakers—to the point where many individuals view themselves as their companion animals’ guardian or “parent” and not as an owner.
- Part of the financial loss suffered by plaintiff owners or caretakers of harmed companion animals is the value of the animals themselves. A more difficult concept than assessing veterinary bills or other expenses incurred as a result of the tortious act, or perhaps a simple concept with complex application, is how to value companion animals who have been killed by tortious conduct. While animals maintained for commercial uses (such as farmed animals) obviously may be harmed as well by tortious acts, valuation of those animals within the legal system is generally a much simpler and more straightforward process of determining fair market value than the valuation of a companion animal. This is especially true of a companion animal who is a mixed breed, rescued, or adopted from a shelter for companionship, rather than a purebred, purchased for breeding or show. In the valuation of companion animals, some courts have considered the “intrinsic” or “special” value the animal had to the...
- In cases where animal advocacy organizations and individuals are seeking to protect wild animals (who are the property of the state) or animals owned for commercial purposes, injunctive relief obtained by the human plaintiffs can result in redress that directly impacts the animals themselves. Federal statutes (discussed further in Chapter 10) may provide the basis for such injunctive relief and other remedies as well.
- Fair market value for property traditionally has been measured by the value of like goods. This method of valuation has a long history. Its application in cases involving animals relies heavily on the property status of animals, rather than consideration of what will appropriately compensate the plaintiff. Historically, with the development of tax assessment rolls, market value for animals became limited to those animals listed. If an animal was not listed, the court would decline to assign any value for the animal’s injury or loss. . Presently, courts valuing animals based on their fair market value look to other factors such as purchase price, sale price, breeding, special training, and any medical conditions the animal may have.
- While it is possible for plaintiffs to obtain an increased award based on an animal’s special skills, some jurisdictions take a narrower view, increasing the award only where there has been a demonstrated economic investment in the animal. Therefore, harm to animals such as those bred for show or used as service animals may be more likely to result in an increased award because of the increased financial investment in breeding or training. In cases involving animals who did not formally assist their owners or caretakers, courts often adhere to a narrower view of compensatory damages.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4 Torts 70 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Indirect tort claims such as malpractice or loss of companionship may recognize that injury to an animal causes injury to humans who are close to the animal. Because Congress and the states have not granted express standing to animals, the court’s standing requirements limit human plaintiffs to these indirect tort claims for compensation for torts committed against animals. Some states have other options. North Carolina allows citizens to file civil actions for violations of criminal animal cruelty laws. Oregon allows citizens to file a nuisance abatement suit where animal crimes are alleged. For more on barriers to standing for animals (generally outside the content of tort claims) and methods used to overcome them, see Chapters 9 and 10.
- While the property status of animals under the law may impede the success of some of the claims discussed above, there are common law torts available to plaintiffs that are based on the status of animals as property under the law. These property-based torts include replevin, conversion, and trespass to chattel, in addition to statutory provisions that may permit a civil action for damages for otherwise criminal conduct. Some plaintiffs may choose not to include claims based on the legal status of their companion animal as property, finding the notion that their beloved companion animal is treated as property under the law offensive to their sensibilities. Strategically, however, if such claims are available under the facts of a given case, they may be useful tools in obtaining recovery and they may also be utilized by creative counsel as a means of raising the court’s awareness regarding animals as much more than mere inanimate property. One advantage to intentional torts such as...
- Claims arising out of tortious harm to animals (often, though not always, companion animals) is an emerging and rapidly growing area of the law, yet it remains deeply rooted in historic common law and in some instances tied to statutes applicable to humans. The status of animals as property under the law factors heavily into the causes of action that may be asserted and the nature and extent of damages that may be awarded. The fact that this particular form of “property” consists of animate beings—who in many instances are loved as family members, though not recognized as such under the law—raises its own unique set of issues in this area of the law.
- Strict liability is a longstanding common law doctrine that originally applied to harm caused by wild animals and by free-roaming livestock, under the presumption that anyone who possessed wild animals (for circuses and roadside zoos, for example) or livestock who roamed freely should have known of the animals’ natural tendencies. Whether this was actually a strict liability standard or an implied negligence standard has been debated by courts and commentators.
- The common law rule for harm caused by companion animals was that owners or possessors of the animals would not be liable unless they knew of the animals’ vicious propensities abnormal to that class of animal.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9 Standing 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Elephant in the Room: Detrimental Effects of Animals’ Property Status on Standing in Animal Protection Cases
- Animals do not have standing to sue, at least in part because they are deemed property under the law. They cannot speak for themselves both literally (with the rare exception of some birds, and nonhuman primates able to communicate by sign language) and figuratively. Individuals or organizations may be able to sue on behalf of animals if they have a special interest in the animal, if that interest gives rise to an injury unique to the individuals or organizations, if such unique injury results from an injury to the animal in question, and if they meet the applicable standing requirements discussed in the preceding section. Even then, the individuals or organizations would be invoking their own legal rights and not those of the animal.
- In some cases, those advocating for animals may name the animal or animals as additional plaintiffs. In those relatively few cases where courts have analyzed whether animal plaintiffs have standing, however, the courts have determined they do not. For example, the plaintiffs in one case challenged the transfer of Kama the dolphin from an aquarium to the Navy. Kama was named as one of the plaintiffs. The federal district court looked at the word “person” as used in statutory provisions outlining cognizable claims under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act (both discussed in more detail in Chapter 10) and determined that, without express authorization from Congress, the word “person” did not include animals. Additionally, the court found that , authorizing suits on behalf of children or incompetent persons, did not apply to animals. The court also looked to ...the capacity to sue be determined according to the law of an individual’s domicile. The court noted...
- Jurisdictions with statutes treating animal abuse or neglect as abatable public nuisances offer an alternative mechanism by which to address animal cruelty via a private right of action. Growing out of common law nuisance doctrine, nuisance abatement laws regulate activities that tend to negatively impact the surrounding community’s quality of life—often explicitly including illegal gambling, illegal prostitution, and illegal drug manufacturing or dealing. These statutes authorize various people—typically government attorneys and members of the impacted community, though sometimes extending to any person—to bring a civil action enjoining the nuisance. Generally, whether animal cruelty falls within a state’s range of abatable public nuisances will depend on the facts of the animal cruelty incident in question, and the language used in the state’s abatement statute. ...locations where gambling takes place within the scope of abatable nuisances; this is particularly useful in animal...
- Animal law, as an interdisciplinary field, encompasses a number of constitutional questions. Many of these are addressed in the chapters in which the questions arise. For example, procedural due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment are discussed in Chapter 7 (State and Local Regulation of Animal Ownership, section II). Fifth Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections are discussed in Chapter 3 (Criminal Law, section VI). First Amendment free speech rights are discussed in Chapter 14 (Animal Activism, section II). Constitutional challenges such as overbreadth and vagueness, as well as Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause challenges, arise in many chapters throughout the text.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12 Animals in Research 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- John J. Pippin, Animal Research in Medical Sciences: Seeking a Convergence of Science, Medicine, and Animal Law, 54 S. Tex. L. Rev. 469 (2013)
- Steven M. Wise, Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos, 2 Animal L. 179 (1996)
- Private and publicly funded research facilities commonly use animals both as subjects in experiments and as objects of experimentation that can be patentable property. In either case, facilities, animal dealers, and exhibitors must comply with federal and state regulations that affect the acquisition, care, and fate of the animals. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), , is the principal source of regulation for animals used in research or for exhibition. Other federal statutes also may affect research, depending on the animal involved. For example, if the animal is an endangered species or a marine mammal, the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act may be implicated. For more on these statutes, see Chapter 10. Interactions between researchers, animal advocates, and activists have been the subject of restrictive legislation, such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which are discussed in Chapter 14.
- Issues relating to the patentability of extinct animals also have arisen. The cloning of an extinct animal requires the combination of non-natural man-made living things (patentable) and naturally occurring animals (not patentable). Thus, if, for instance, a wooly mammoth was to be cloned successfully, it is unclear whether the scientists involved would be able to patent the animal. For further analysis of the patentability of extinct animals, see Ryan Hagglund,
- The Stem Cell Debate: Why Should it Matter to Animal Advocates?
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 State and Local Regulation of Animal Ownership 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Modern anti-cruelty laws are perhaps the most obvious and pervasive example of state governments limiting owners’ actions to protect the owners’ own property (the animals) from the owners themselves. Other common examples include prohibitions on cosmetic surgeries, such as tail docking and ear cropping; limitations on the numbers of animals allowed to reside in a home absent a license; requirements to have vaccinations against rabies and other transmittable diseases; and restrictions on future ownership of animals by individuals who have been convicted of animal abuse. Although these restrictions operate as limitations on personal
- Public nuisances in animal law cases may arise in a number of contexts, such as a neighbor with potentially dangerous exotic animals or an industrial farm that has hundreds or thousands of farmed animals. (These are also known as “factory farms” and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 11.) For example, large hog operations generate a substantial amount of waste that must be managed. If not properly managed, serious and potentially harmful air and water pollution often result and can detrimentally impact surrounding communities in numerous ways. So-called “Right to Farm” laws have been passed to combat claims that focus on the effects of farming practices. “Right to Farm” laws are intended to discourage nuisance claims by creating a statutory presumption (albeit a rebuttable one) that whatever nuisance is created by the operation is outweighed by the public value in having working farms in the community.
- Dangerous Dog Laws: Failing to Give Man’s Best Friend a Fair Shake at Justice
- Animals are property and, as such, may be owned or possessed, except to the extent restricted by a law or regulation. Much local governmental regulation relates to ownership of companion animals and, in particular, to dog ownership. Indeed, 63.4 million households in the United States own at least one dog. Am. Pet Prods. Ass’n, . The prevalence of keeping dogs and other animals as companions has driven many state and local governments to adopt laws specific to pet ownership that often include statutes or ordinances relating to “dangerous dogs,” breed-specific regulations, licensing requirements, and zoning restrictions. In addition, nuisance claims may
- Police powers, however, are not unlimited. State or federal constitutions’ due process, commerce, and equal protection clauses all act as checks on overly aggressive uses of police powers. This protection against improper governmental intrusion impacts animal ownership just as it does other areas of individual rights and protections. In addition to possible constitutional limitations, state laws cannot be inconsistent with federal laws, although they may provide for stricter standards. (in a challenge to an ordinance forbidding the keeping of wild animals, the court held that the federal Animal Welfare Act did not preempt stricter state regulations).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Contracts 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Animals often come between tenants and their landlords in the context of lease violations. A lease may prohibit or limit the type, breed, or number of animals a tenant may keep. In construing these lease provisions, federal and state laws, as well as general rules of contract construction, govern the court’s analysis. This section touches on common lease restrictions and potential defenses tenants may raise. For instance, a tenant may seek to classify her animal as a service animal, requiring a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ( ...or federal Fair Housing Acts; a tenant may also argue selective enforcement of the restriction, or waiver and estoppel. In part due to the rise in disputes of this nature, states or local governments may also address some of these claims and defenses by statute or ordinance. This section explores some of these jurisdictional differences in the context of the commonly litigated issues surrounding animals in...
- The reader may note the absence of discussion regarding contracts for the sale of animals. Historically, animals are treated as commodities in purchase/sale contracts and much of the litigation surrounding such contracts does not center on the welfare of the animals. Thus, a discussion of contracts for the sale of animals is outside the scope of this book. Bailment contracts, however, do deal directly with the welfare of the animal involved and, as such, are discussed herein, in Chapter 4, section VI.
- Consistent with the legal status of animals as property, courts generally treat animals in contractual disputes as property, with some important qualifications. Contractual disputes involving animals generally relate to custody disputes in marital or other relationships, housing, and insurance issues. In light of the unique nature of animals as property, courts perhaps are more willing to grant specific performance or other equitable remedies that may not be available in contractual disputes involving inanimate property. For more on the court’s consideration of the value of animals in the context of damages and remedies, see Chapter 5. This chapter will survey the types of claims that arise out of contracts, and commonly disputed issues within those claims, to consider the ways in which courts construe contracts affecting animals and their caregivers.
- Whether and to what extent a court will consider the interests of an animal varies by jurisdiction and the particular judge hearing the case, and it also may depend on the facts involved, such as in the case of neglect or abuse. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of animal abuse and family violence, animals in protective orders, and other abuse-related issues.
- The FHA’s treatment of animals as reasonable accommodations, however, extends beyond the ADA service animal category considered by the West Virginia Supreme Court. Service animals—such as the seeing-eye dog described in the FHA implementing regulations—are specially trained to provide a service that alleviates a particular disability. In contrast, the broader category of assistance animals includes animals who alleviate particular disabilities without additional training. Courts considering which animals qualify as reasonable accommodations under the FHA initially tended to simply import the definition of service animal provided by the ADA, thus requiring animals ...recent opinions, looking to the divergent goals of the ADA and FHA, as well as rulemaking undertaken by the federal Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), have concluded that “the FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training, including those that...
- Open Chapter
Index 98 results (showing 5 best matches)
Outline 52 results (showing 5 best matches)
Center Title 1 result
Table of Cases 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Allen v. Pennsylvania Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 351
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., 265
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, 264
- Animal Legal Defense Fund Boston v. Provimi Veal Corp., 277, 358, 360, 391
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Espy, 265, 406
- Open Chapter
West Academic Publishing’s Emeritus Advisory Board 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of LawUniversity of Houston Law Center
- Dean and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Public Interest LawUniversity of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
- Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 7th, 2020
- ISBN: 9781684678853
- Subject: Animal Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Topics include animal anti-cruelty laws, industrial and agricultural uses of animals, torts and other claims for harm done to animals, as well as federal, state and local regulation of animal ownership and use, animal rights activism, hunting, fishing and other recreational uses of animals, animals in entertainment, issues arising when animals are the subject of a contract or the intended beneficiary of a will or trust, remedies for harm done to animals, international animal law, constitutional law issues, and anticipated future legal developments in the field.