Digital Commons Network^™

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates, Delcianna J. Winders

Animal Law Review

On April 14, 2006, the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of New York University School of Law hosted a symposium on how to overcome some common courtroom barriers faced by animal advocates. Panelists discussed cultural and legal transitions, legal standing for nonhuman animals, and potential causes of action. Symposium participants included prominent attorneys, authors, philosophers, and professors specializing in the field of animal protection law. The following articles have been adapted from transcripts of the symposium.

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates: Introduction, Clayton Gillette, Joyce Tischler

Animal Law Review

Joyce Tischler describes the development of the field of animal law from the first animal law conference to its current recognition as one of today’s most important issues. Tischler traces the beginnings of animal law and its development, both parallel to and as part of the animal rights and protection movements. Tischler further explores common dilemmas facing animal lawyers and how these dilemmas, along with their responses, have helped shape animal law as we know it today.

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates: Linking Cultural And Legal Transitions, Taimie Bryant, Una Chaudhuri, Dale Jamieson, Laura Ireland Moore, David J. Wolfson

Animal Law Review

Panelists: Taimie Bryant, Una Chaudhuri, and Dale Jamieson

Moderators: Laura Ireland Moore and David J. Wolfson

In this discussion, panelists explore the many viewpoints society holds with respect to nonhuman animals. The discussion broadly covers ethics and what constitutes ethical behavior in this regard. The question dealt with is, largely, what is the appropriate ethical model to use when arguing that animals deserve better treatment and expanded rights? Unlike parallel movements for human civil rights or women’s equality, the animal rights movement has much greater hurdles to overcome when it comes to arguing that animals deserve equal treatment under the …

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates: Legal Standing For Animals And Advocates, David Cassuto, Jonathan Lovvorn, Katherine Meyer, Joyce Tischler

Animal Law Review

Panelists: David Cassuto, Jonathan Lovvorn, and Katherine Meyer

Moderator: Joyce Tischler

For animal advocates, one of the most significant barriers to the courtroom is standing. In order to litigate on behalf of an animal’s interests in federal court, the advocate must first establish standing by meeting three requirements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, (2) the injury must be causally connected to the act about which the plaintiff is complaining, and (3) the court must be able to redress the injury. When it comes to non-human animals, how does an advocate demonstrate an injury to establish …

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates: Animal Advocacy And Causes Of Action, Carter Dillard, David Favre, Eric Glitzenstein, Mariann Sullivan, Sonia Waisman, Leonard Egert

Animal Law Review

Panelists: Carter Dillard, David Favre, Eric Glitzenstein, Mariann Sullivan, and Sonia Waisman

Moderator: Leonard Egert

In the third panel of the NYU Symposium, distinguished animal law professionals discuss various causes of action which may be used on behalf of animals in the courtroom. Panelists talk about traditional forms of standing, make suggestions for innovation using existing laws, and discuss visions of how they would like to see the law develop as it pertains to standing for animals.

Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates: Conclusion, David J. Wolfson

Animal Law Review

No abstract provided.

There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases, Lynn A. Epstein

Animal Law Review

Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The …

The Ethical Case For European Legislation Against Fur Farming, Andrew Linzey

Animal Law Review

In recent years, several member states in the European Union enacted legislation to regulate or prohibit fur farming. This article calls for further action to ban the practice throughout the European Union. The Author notes animals’ inabilities to protect their own interests and the role of law to protect these vulnerable interests. The Author concludes by responding to the objections of fur farming proponents, ultimately finding no legitimate justification for the documented suffering of animals raised on fur farms.

To What Extent Does Wealth Maximization Benefit Farmed Animals? A Law And Economics Approach To A Ban On Gestation Crates In Pig Production, Geoffrey C. Evans

Animal Law Review

A law and economics approach in the current animals-as-property realm could be the most efficient way to gain protections for the billions of farmed animals that need them now. The wealth maximization theory allows for this because it recognizes human valuation of nonhuman interests. However, evidence shows that a market failure exists because of the discord between public will and animal industry practices. Where human valuation of nonhuman interests is underrepresented in the market and, therefore, a market fix is needed through legislation, animal advocates should evaluate the legislation’s economic impacts. In the case of a ban on gestation crates, …

Table Of Contents

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sun Also Rises: The Political Economy Of Sunset Provisions In The Tax Code, Rebecca M. Kysar

Georgia Law Review

This Article provides an overview and critical analysis of sunset provisions in the tax code and, through examination of the political pressures that led to their striking transformation, also reveals disturbing points of vulnerability in the legislative process. It concludes that, contrary to one of the primary justifications for the enactment of sunset provisions-that these provisions reduce the influence exerted on lawmakers by interest groups-sunsets may instead further politicize the legislative process and, due to their mechanics, increase the likelihood of inefficient social outcomes. The history of sunset provisions in tax legislation also illuminates the complex, multidirectional,and often dramatic interaction …

The Paradox Of Omnipotence: Courts, Constitutions, And Commitments, David S. Law

Georgia Law Review

Sovereigns, like individuals, must sometimes make commitments that limit their freedom of action in order to accomplish their goals. Scholars have observed that constitutional arrangements can, by restricting a sovereign's power, enable the sovereign to make such commitments. The opposite, however, can also be true: constitutional arrangements can and do impede sovereign commitment by entrenching inalienable governmental powers and immunities. This Article explores the nature and origins of the commitment problems that sovereigns face, and the role of courts in solving such problems. It begins by setting forth an analytical distinction between effective and persuasive commitments. Effective commitments are made …

"If The Train Should Jump The Track.. .": Divergent Interpretations Of State And Federal Employment Discrimination Statutes, Alex B. Long

Georgia Law Review

As interpretational issues surrounding federal employment discrimination statutes have become more complex and controversial, there have arisen more opportunities for parallel state anti-discrimination law to jump the track" and take alternative courses. Not surprisingly, when dealing with their own parallel state statutes, a number of state appellate courts in recent years have chosen this course of action. Even where state and federal employment discrimination have not yet taken different paths, the potential for such divergent interpretations of state and federal anti-discrimination law has increased in recent years to the point where we may enter an era not unlike that of …

Redefining Physicians' Duties: An Argument For Eliminating The Physician-Patient Relationship Requirement In Actions For Medical Malpractice, Patrick D. Blake

Georgia Law Review

Nearly every state requires a patient to prove the existence of a formal physician-patient relationship in order to proceed with a claim for medical malpractice. In the absence of such a relationship, a physician's actions are measured by an ordinary negligence standard instead of the professional standard of care. Because courts have traditionally held that independent medical examinations, such as pre-employment health screenings, do not give rise to formal physician-patient relationships, individuals undergoing these examinations have been prevented from bringing malpractice claims against physicians who fail to disclose important health information detected during the examination. Recently, a small number of …

Climate Change Litigation: The Federal Common Law Of Interstate Nuisance And Federalism Concerns, Benjamin P. Harper

Georgia Law Review

After political efforts have failed to deal with the problem of global climate change, some scholars have encouraged litigation as a possible solution to the problem. The case of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. represents one attempt to use the federal courts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. In American Electric eight state attorneys general and New York City sued five large out-of-state power companies for carbon dioxide emissions, basing the case on the federal common law theory of interstate public nuisance. This Note discusses the appropriateness of the interstate public nuisance theory and the obstacles to climate change litigation. …

Table Of Contents

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Norms In A State Of Permanent Emergency, Sanford Levinson

Georgia Law Review

Perhaps the most important constitutional issue of our time involves claims by the President to exercise power sufficient to confront ostensible 'emergencies" faced by the United States. One question is whether the Constitution grants the President sufficient powers. If not, are presidents justified in going 'beyond the Constitution"in order to do what they believe necessary in the given context? Professor Levinson demonstrates that debates about "emergency powers" have been a feature of our political system almost from its beginning. Many of those deemed our "greatest" presidents-Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt-have acted in questionable ways with regard to what might legitimately …

Waging War Against Terror: An Essay For Sandy Levinson, Philip Bobbitt

Georgia Law Review

Wars are acts of State, and therefore there has never been a "war on terror." Of course states have fought terrorism, in many guises, for centuries. But a war on terror had to await the development of states-including virtual states like al Qaeda's global ummah 2-whose constitutional order was not confined to a particular territory or national group and for whom terror could therefore be a permanent state of international affairs, either sought in order to prevent persons within a state's control from resisting oppression by accessing global, empowering resources and networks, or suffered because other states wished to press …

The Rhetoric Of Necessity (Or, Sanford Levinson's Pinteresque Conversation), Kevin J. Heller

Georgia Law Review

It may seem odd to begin a discussion of whether the President should have the power to act extraconstitutionally in times of necessity with a quote from The Dwarfs. As I researched this Comment, though, I could not escape the uneasy feeling that I was witnessing what could only be described as a Pinteresque conversation-a conversation in which Professor Levinson and his interlocutors, "while exchanging remarks apparently on a common topic, and using mutually comprehensible vocabulary, are revealed as experiencing a profound failure to communicate with one another."2 Professor Levinson wants to find a workable balance between constitutional restraints and …

The Emancipation Proclamation And The Commander In Chief Power, Michael S. Paulsen

Georgia Law Review

Levinson, a good Socratic teacher, poses the question what is the relationship of emergency or necessity to constitutional power, constitutional rights, and constitutional interpretation generally, and surrounds it with a characteristically fascinating discussion. But while his leanings are clear, he does not clearly answer the question his discussion poses. One can certainly infer that Levinson dislikes Carl Schmitt's legal theories of emergency, which he sees as justifying Hitler's rise to power. And it certainly comes through quite clearly that Levinson feels the same way about the U.S. Department of Justice's legal analysis concerning detention and interrogation of war prisoners (which …

Small Emergencies, Kim L. Scheppele

Georgia Law Review

In this Comment, I argue that the "normal" American constitutional order can be seen as thoroughly shot through with emergency law and that this constant sense of emergency has fundamentally shaped the possibilities of American constitutionalism. America is now-and has been since the First World War-virtually always in a state of emergency, one way or another. Sometimes these states of emergency have been local, other times they have been federal, and still other times they have been international. Sometimes these states of emergency have been political; other times they have been economic or social. Sometimes these states of emergency have …

Time To Look Abroad? The Legal Regulation Of Emergency Powers, William E. Scheuerman

Georgia Law Review

The starting point for Professor Levinson's thought-provoking ruminations on emergency power and constitutionalism is his deep skepticism about the Bush Administration's legal response to 9/11.1 In the context of the "war on terror," Professor Levinson accurately recounts, the Administration has claimed the right to override both longstanding domestic and international legal commitments.2 Even strict prohibitions on torture, it seems, are not exempt from the President's constitutionally based prerogative as "Commander in Chief to keep the nation out of harm's way, and only he apparently possesses the rightful authority to determine the fate of accused terrorists. Although many constitutional lawyers will …

Meditations On Carl Schmitt, Mark Tushnet

Georgia Law Review

A spectre is haunting Professor Levinson - the spectre of Carl Schmitt. The German--or should it be Nazi? - constitutional theorist flits in and out of Professor Levinson's discussion. Professor Levinson has done yeoman work in bringing Schmitt's perspective to the attention of constitutional theorists. My comments offer my own reaction to what I take to be Schmitt's points, and in doing so may confirm Professor Levinson's assessment of Schmitt's importance today. I start with the sentence Professor Levinson quotes: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. Professor Levinson focuses on the first part of the sentence, because, in …

The Deepening Crisis Of American Constitutionalism, Sanford Levinson

Georgia Law Review

Events since my Sibley Lecture in March 2005 have only underscored the importance of the general topic "Constitutional Norms and Permanent Emergencies"-whatever the adequacy of my own analysis. Probably the most prominent example is the controversy generated by disclosure of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance of phone calls of American citizens, undertaken without a scintilla of judicial approval, and by the Bush Administration's defense of the surveillance in spite of legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that seems quite clearly to make it illegal.' Also noteworthy, however, is the Bush Administration's continued assertions that it simply does not …

Picking Our Battles: A Strategy For The United States In The Wake Of Mexico's Becoming A State Party To The International Criminal Court, Rachel Harkavy

Georgia Law Review

When Mexico became a state party to the International Criminal Court, it put the United States in the position of choosing between honoring its relationship with Mexico or staying true to its strong objections to the ICC. The downside of the first option is that the United States would be backing down from its anti-ICC stance; the downside of the latter is that the United States would not only disrespect Mexico in pushing it to sign a bilateral immunity agreement, but, since Mexico would likely refuse to enter into such an agreement, the United States would also be put in …

Banishing Acts: How Far May States Go To Keep Convicted Sex Offenders Away From Children?, Bret R. Hobson

Georgia Law Review

Few legislative goals are more commendable than states' attempts to prevent child sexual abuse. Given the difficult nature of this problem, some judicial deference to legislative efforts is appropriate. Politicians, however, should not receive carte blanche to enact reactionary, overinclusive statutes of questionable efficacy. When laws such as residency restrictions target all convicted sex offenders who have already paid their debt to society, courts should closely examine whether such laws violate substantive due process and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Despite the difficulty in articulating a discrete fundamental right that is infringed by residency restrictions,these laws restrain the liberty of …

The Swift, Silent Sword Hiding In The (Defense) Attorney's Arsenal: The Inefficacy Of Georgia's New Offer Of Judgment Statute As Procedural Tort Reform, Merritt E. Mcalister

Georgia Law Review

Offer of judgment provisions, initially creatures of state law but codified in 1938 as Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are neither widely used nor widely understood. Both federal and state offer of judgment rules operate to penalize a plaintiff who fails to accept, in light of the ultimate judgment, a reasonable settlement offer. Scholars have often criticized the federal rule's minimal impact as a tool to encourage settlement, and several states, including Georgia in a recent enactment, have made efforts to create offer of judgment provisions that provide severe penalties-attorney's fees and costs-for an offeree who …

Table Of Contents

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forty Years Of Codification Of Estates And Trusts Law: Lessons For The Next Generation, Mary Louise Fellows, Gregory S. Alexander

Georgia Law Review

As others in this symposium have stated, Richard V. Wellman devoted his professional life to promoting legislation to make the law of estates and trusts responsive to the needs of a state's citizenry. As he saw it, his goal to make the law of donative transfers simpler, fairer, and less expensive depended upon new legislative proposals accompanied by a range of strategies to educate the bar and policymakers about them. Over the years, Dick's faith in statutory lawmaking only grew, because estate planning experts and legislators lauded the benefits achieved through enactment of the uniform laws he either drafted or …

Richard Vance Wellman, Thomas L. Jones

Georgia Law Review

I first met Richard "Dick"Vance Wellman when I was a graduate law student at The University of Michigan. As it turned out, Dick and I taught almost the same courses in our law schools. Perhaps I knew Dick best, however, as a Commissioner on Uniform State Laws.' The Model Probate Code (MPC) was promulgated in 1946 with Professor Lewis Simes, of The University of Michigan, as its Chief Reporter. As its name suggests, the Model Probate Code was intended to be a collection of probate statutes from which the respective states might pick and choose a well-drafted provision on a …