<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Jason E Schwalm</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm</link>
<description>Recent documents in Jason E Schwalm</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:32:23 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>








<item>
<title>Animal Cruelty by Another Name: the Redundancy of Animal Hoarding Laws</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm/3</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm/3</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:08:46 PST</pubDate>
<description>Animal hoarding – the practice of collecting a large number of animals but failing to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and sanitation - presents unique challenges to the legal system. However, in all but a few states, a general anti-cruelty provision is used to prosecute animal hoarders. Some legal scholars have proposed the adoption of specific anti-hoarding statutes. These statutes are meant to address the failure of anti-cruelty laws to effectively punish animal hoarders and deter further hoarding behavior. Instead, legislatures should ensure that existing anti-cruelty statutes effectively address hoarding behavior, by amending the required level of intent, and by ensuring that courts and law enforcement officials are equipped to address the psychological dimension of hoarding behavior.</description>

<author>Jason E. Schwalm</author>


<category>Animal Law</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Eye of the Beholder: a Defendant-Reliant Approach to Valuing Injunctive Relief for the Purposes of the Amount in Controversy Requirement</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/jason_schwalm/1</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:46:45 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This article examines a long standing Circuit court split concerning the valuation of injunctive relief for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Specifically, the note argues that the Sixth Circuit, as the last court to weigh in on this argument, should use the experience of the other circuits in creating a defendant-reliant approach to the valuation of injunctive relief. This approach would acknowledge the defendant-focused nature of injunctive relief and in doing so would reject both sides of the Circuit court split.</description>

<author>Jason E. Schwalm</author>


<category>Courts</category>

<category>Jurisdiction</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>

