Animal Law

Topics: Cruelty to animals, Animal welfare, Dog Pages: 23 (6029 words) Published: May 9, 2013


I) DEFINING ANIMAL: Arbitrary delineation. Answer often crucial to outcome of cases. Holdings are unpredictable and often counterintuitive. Animals = property. The cuter the animal the more protection they get.

1) Roosters (and Cockfighting: States all over the place) a) NM: yes
b) OK: no
2) Goldfish
a) MA: yes
b) NY: yes
3) Deer
a) NM: no (wild ones)
4) Bird, Aquatic Animals Rats and Mice
a) Research Facilities (Federal): No (Animal Welfare Act 1970) b) CA & most states: Yes
Add in Statutory Definitions on 20-22

A) Reasonable Person Standard: Would average Joe know this was an animal? Lock (OK 1963) (p. 35): Rooster not animal because average person wouldn’t consider it so.

B) Domestic and Companion Animals and Livestock
1) Livestock
a) Levine v Conner, US District Ct, ND Cal, 2008. The court uses the Chevron two part test to determine that poultry is excluded from livestock: i) Look to the statute’s language to determine whether or not Congress’s intention is clear with regard to the precise question at issue. If it is, that’s the end of the matter. If not, go to Step Two. ← Plain Language – ordinary and natural meaning

ii) Look at the legislative history. Did the administrative agency do what Congress said to do? b) United States v Park, US Ct of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2008 i) Def of livestock is too ambiguous to determine whether a dog kennel business is included. 1) Livestock generally considered to be farm animals, though some definitions could be construed to include cats and dogs. a. Greyhounds: NO (FL)

b. Domestic Dogs: NO (Michigan, CA)
YES: Kansas
c. Cal Bus & Prof Code 4825.1 (2008) applied to veterinary medicine: includes all animals, poultry, aquatic and amphibian species raised, kept or used for profit. Doesn’t include species kept as pets such as dogs, cats, pet birds, equines.

C) Domestic versus Wild: Decisions often based on historic perspective and result-oriented. Leads to difficult in advising clients on likely outcome. Often varies state-by-state. Economic interests protected by courts. May also depend on where we live and what year it is. Almost every state includes cats and dogs as domestic animals. Domestic and companion run together, and can include livestock.

1) Judging Species v. Individual Animal: Most courts will look at species as whole, not individual animal.

a) Individual: City of Rolling Meadows (IL 1986) (p. 44) re monkey is exception. Upside is looking as animal as individual, which is revolutionary. Downside is that may be endangered animal and should not be kept as pet. Issue that domestic animal can also be made wild again.

b) Species: Gallic v. Barto (PA 1993) (p. 47 Note 2): Ferrets judged as species. Wild with domestic tendencies. Turns to history of animal used by people for hunting. Case doesn’t outlaw possession of ferret, but these kinds of decisions lead to statutes outlawing them. Prof comments – argument against cute animal theory, because they are cute and courts say they are wild.

i) Note 4 on page 40 – US Supreme Court looked at dogs in the American legal system in Sentell v New Orleans & Carrollton RR Co (1897) and singles out breeds.

ii) Turkey
← MI: domestic
iii) Cow
← LA: domestic (insurance issue)
iv) Cat
← PA: Not domestic
v) Dog:
← PA: Domestic animal
vi) Monkey
← IL: Domestic
vii) Ferrets:...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Animal Law Essay
  • Essay on Animal
  • The Animal Kingdom Animals Essay
  • Animal Testing Essay
  • animal protection Essay
  • Essay about Care for animals
  • animal testing Essay
  • Animal Mind Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free