Archive for May, 2006
May 15th, 2006
The latest issue of Lewis & Clark Law School’s Animal Law is now out.
Here are the articles published in Volume 12, Number 1 of Animal Law, complete with links to the abstracts:
Article
New L&C Law Scholarship is a regular feature of BoleyBlogs! Here we announce new content from the Law Reviews of Lewis & Clark Law School, along with the latest publishing ventures of our own faculty, students and staff.
May 15th, 2006
Phyllis Coleman, Man['s Best Friend] Does Not Live By Bread Alone: Imposing A Duty To Provide Veterinary Care, 12 Animal Law (2006)
Although all states outlaw cruelty to companion animals, most jurisdictions only prohibit causing unnecessary suffering as well as failure to provide food, water, and shelter. They do not address whether owners must obtain veterinary care. Even the few statutes that mention such treatment do not define exactly what kind and how much is required. This article highlights the deficiencies in these laws. It argues that keeping pets creates an obligation to get them medical treatment when they are sick or injured and also explains why such a duty is necessary. In addition it proposes uniform legislation that creates an explicit obligation to provide health care to companion animals, imposes a duty on veterinarians to report cruelty, and establishes strict penalties for violations.
(abstract from Animal Law)
May 15th, 2006
Katherine A. Burke, Looking For A Nexus Between Trust, Compassion, And Regulation: Colorado’s Search For Standards Of Care For Private, Non-Profit Wildlife Sanctuaries, 12 Animal Law (2006)
In 2004, the Colorado legislature amended its wildlife statutes, formally recognizing the existence of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Opponents to the 2004 amendments and CDOW staff have repeatedly expressed concerns that private sanctuaries should not be authoirzed in the absence of regulations and enforcement mechanisms sufficient to protect the animals and the people who come into contact with them. In implementing the sanctuary statute, CDOW has followed a familiar pattern, relying on the accredidation program of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA) to provide the basis of its regulations. In doing so, CDOW has failed to understand that the AZA standards are wholly innapropriate for sanctuaries; they are inadequate to protect the safety of animals and humans; and they are overly burdensome and even diametrically opposed to the status and goals of private and non-profit wildlife sanctuaries.
(abstract from Animal Law)
May 15th, 2006
Russell C. D’Costa, Reparations As A Basis For The Makah’s Right To Whale, 12 Animal Law (2006)
The grant of whaling rights to the Makah Native-American tribe may be interpreted as a form of reparations owed to the tribe from the United States government. History details the many wrongs inflicted on the Makah by the government, and these wrongs therefore serve as a basis for reparations. Considered first is a brief review of recent attempts by the federal government to compensate Native Americans for past wrongs. Next, an examination of the history and culture of the Makah tribe provides a greater understanding of the significance of whaling to the Makah. The essay then expounds on why permitting the tribe to engage in whaling is an acceptable form of reparations. Finally, arguments against the Makah’s whaling are also examined and critiqued.
(abstract from Animal Law)
May 15th, 2006
Mariyetta Meyers, Maximizing Scientific Integrity In Environmental Regulations: The Need For Congress To Provide Guidance When Scientific Methods Are Inadequate Or When Data Is Inconclusive, 12 Animal Law (2006)
A “best science available” directive appears in a variety of environmental law statutes. Although seemingly clear, this directive has created an abundance of litigation with various plaintiffs challenging agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The court’s review of agency decisions based on such science largely depends on the various ways in which the “best science available” directive is written in the particular statute. That is, the more specific the congressional mandate, the less latitude the agency has in implementing congressional will; the broader the statutory language, the more breathing space the agency enjoys. This in turn relates directly to the plaintiffs’ ability to bring about successful challenges to agency regulations. The less specific the statutory language defining what constitutes best science available, the more leeway is available to the agency, and the less likely the plaintiffs are to prevail on a challenge that the agency actions are arbitrary and capricious under section 706 of the APA.
(abstract from Animal Law)
May 10th, 2006
The Fire of Genius
Lewis & Clark Law School professor Joe Miller this week unveils his new patent, i.p. (& more) blog The Fire of Genius.
The Fire of Genius provides “academic commentary about patent law, i.p. law, creativity, and more.” In a bit more detail, Professor Miller explains:
I am a law professor who teaches in and writes on patent law and related areas, such as other types of intellectual property law and antitrust law. I launched The Fire of Genius in May 2006 to comment on patent law, i.p. law, creativity, the legal academy, and more. I comment in this way as part of my larger effort to teach and to learn in conversation. I hope you will join in that conversation as a reader and commenter.
Professor Miller was previously blogging as part of the team at Madisonian. Be sure to add The Fire of Genius to your bookmark folder (old school) or its RSS feed to your feed reader (hipster school). We have. Hey, one week in and Professor Miller already has cited one of our all-time favorite blogs, Presentation Zen.
The Fire of Genius is Lewis & Clark Law School’s fourth faculty blog. Professor Miller joins Lewis & Clark blogging professors Jack Bogdanski, blogging at Jack Bog’s Blog, Lydia Loren at LC CyberBlog, and Geoff Manne at Truth on the Market.
May 5th, 2006
The Volokh Conspiracy – the well-known blog written by UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh and a host of others – is in the process of providing many valuable tips for law review write-on competitions.
The tips so far:
The 2006 Law Review Writing Competition for our three law reviews, Environmental Law, Animal Law, and Lewis & Clark Law Review, opens on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Find the information for the write-on competition here (pdf).
As our good friends at the Heafey Law Library wrote, “if you haven’t read some of [Professor Volokh's] longer works on academic legal writing, [we, the very many editors of BoleyBlogs!] highly recommend the following:”
Source: Heafey Headnotes
May 4th, 2006
Wikocracy
Finally, the opportunity to write and rewrite the law without the burden of fundraising and running for office and getting elected and (as one governer would say) all that.
Wikocracy, an experiment in “law-making free for all,” allows any and all to rewrite existing laws and write new ones, putting teeth to the oft-spoken phrase, “there ought to be a law.”
Laws and such already being rewritten include:
- The Constitution of the United States of America
- Roe v. Wade
- USA PATRIOT Act
- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Detention of Non-Citizens
- International Technology Rights Act
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Immigration Reform Act
- Controlled Substances Act
- Definition and Characteristics of Terrorism
- Resolution Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
- Resolution Regarding the Sudanese Genocide
- American Systematic Tax Reform Act of 2006
It’s a Wiki, so anyone can edit, create and re-edit anyone’s text. As the wise creaters of Wikocracy put it,
One person’s changes can be revised or reversed by the next. Over time, this platform could reflect a collaborative statement of what we think the law should be. Or it could reflect a moment-by-moment statement of the most recent editor’s views. This will be as bloody or as civil as you make it…
Sources: WisBlawg and Law Librarian Blog
May 2nd, 2006
Our good friends at JURIST have been nominated for a Webby Award(the “Oscars of the Internet”) for best Law website.
Vote now and help JURIST be the first law school site to ever win a Webby. Full details and voting instructions are at this JURIST Webby Award page.
What is JURIST?
JURIST (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu) is a Web-based legal news and real-time legal research service powered by a mostly-volunteer team of over 30 part-time law student reporters, editors and Web developers led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Source: JURIST
|
|
