Animal Law Commons^™

Strict Liability Upon Gunowners (Slug): A Proposed Balanced Approach, David Louis

St. Mary's Law Journal

Careless or apathetic gunowners, whose lost or stolen firearms are used in the commission of a violent crime, should be held strictly liable. Current tort law leaves victims of gun violence and their families without a mode of redress against an irresponsible gun owner whose actions played a pivotal role in the victim’s ultimate injury. Without effective liability principles to regulate gun ownership, gunowners are provided de facto immunity regardless of whether the harm suffered by the victim is intertwined with the gunowners careless behavior. This comment examines the efficacy of existing tort liability principles as provided in the Restatement …

Skinning The Cat: How Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations For Animal Cruelty Offenders Can Prevent Future Violence, Ashley Kunz

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In 2017, the Texas legislature amended Texas Penal Code § 42.092, which governs acts of cruelty against non-livestock animals. The statute in its current form makes torturing, killing, or seriously injuring a non-livestock animal a third degree felony, while less serious offenses carry either a state jail felony or a Class A misdemeanor charge.

While a step in the right direction, Texas law is not comprehensive in that it fails to address a significant aspect of animal cruelty offenses: mental illness. For over fifteen years, Texas Family Code § 54.0407 has required psychiatric counseling for juveniles convicted of cruelty to …

Texas Indian Holocaust And Survival: Mcallen Grace Brethren Church V. Salazar, Milo Colton

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

When the first Europeans entered the land that would one day be called Texas, they found a place that contained more Indian tribes than any other would-be American state at the time. At the turn of the twentieth century, the federal government documented that American Indians in Texas were nearly extinct, decreasing in number from 708 people in 1890 to 470 in 1900. A century later, the U.S. census recorded an explosion in the American Indian population living in Texas at 215,599 people. By 2010, that population jumped to 315,264 people.

Part One of this Article chronicles the forces contributing …

Avian Jurisprudence And The Protection Of Migratory Birds In North America, Marshall A. Bowen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Service Animals In Training And The Law: An Imperfect System., Darcie Magnuson

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not provide protection for service animals in training anywhere in public places, including workplaces and government buildings. Individual state statutes may or may not grant service animals in training access to places of public accommodations, public buildings, or places of employment. Similarly, neither the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) nor the Fair Housing Act (FHA) Amendments afford rights and privileges in air transportation and housing, respectively, to service animals in training. Without service animals, individuals with disabilities would not be able to equally access society or fully participate in many activities. However, without …

The Thirteenth Amendment Won't Help Free Willy., Sheri Flannery

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Orcas are not afforded any relief under the Thirteenth Amendment. Animal rights advocates, namely People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), alleged animals have the right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude as guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Although the Thirteenth Amendment has been extended beyond African slavery, its protections have never been granted to anything other than human beings. The United States Supreme Court’s examination and interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment concluded that animals are not afforded such protections under this amendment. The Court reasoned that the Thirteenth Amendment only applied to humans and not animals. …