|
Lab-Grown Meat: Ban or Buy? |
This article concerns the recent technological advancement of the lab-grown meat industry and subsequent backlash from some states that have enacted bans on lab-grown meat products. Florida and Alabama have enacted bans, and some states have proposed special labeling laws for lab-grown meat products. This article discusses the controversy that led to these laws, some of the pros and cons of lab-grown animal products, and viability of replacing animal agriculture with lab-grown meat in the long term. |
|
Ladnier v. Hester |
Plaintiff motorist sued horse owner for negligence after he collided with the horse that was loose on the highway. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. The Court of Appeals sustained summary judgment for horse owner because the motorist produced no evidence that owner 1) had failed to act with reasonable care in enclosing his horses, and 2) that horse had a propensity to escape or cause injury that gave rise to a heightened duty on owner's part. After being granted a writ of certiorari by the Mississippi Supreme Court, the court held that the Plaintiffs had offered sufficient evidence to withstand the horse owner's motion for summary judgment.The case was then reversed and remanded.
|
|
Larry BARD et al., Appellants, v. Reinhardt JAHNKE, Individually And Doing Business as Hemlock Valley Farms, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
The accident underlying this litigation occurred on a dairy farm owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, arrived at the farm to meet defendant John Timer, another self-employed carpenter to repair of the dairy barn. While working, Bard was seriously injured by a bull. Bard, with his wife suing derivatively, commenced an action against both Jahnke and Timer to recover damages for his personal injuries, alleging causes of action sounding in strict liability and negligence. In affirming the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, this court found that Jahnke was not liable for Bard's injuries unless he knew or should have known of the bull's vicious or violent propensities. The Court noted that the record contained no such evidence.
|
|
Laws Affecting Cattle |
|
|
Leg and Heart Problems in Broiler Chickens |
A science based paper exploring how selective breeding has created chickens with leg and heart problems.(Science based footnotes)
|
|
LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'DEMURRER |
|
|
Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms, L.L.C. |
This case examined whether Defendants' commercial poultry operations—including hatching, transporting, and slaughtering chickens—fell under exemptions in North Carolina's Protection of Animals Act (PAA). Plaintiff, an animal advocacy group, alleged Defendants subjected chickens to cruel treatment, such as starvation, crushing, overheating, and boiling alive, violating the PAA's prohibition on unjustifiable suffering. The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding that the PAA's exemptions for "lawful activities conducted for the production of poultry" and "providing food for human or animal consumption" shielded Defendants' entire operation, not just isolated steps in the process. The court rejected Plaintiff's argument that each stage of production should be scrutinized individually, ruling instead that the statute's plain language protected lawful commercial farming as a whole. Because Plaintiff failed to allege Defendants' overarching business was unlawful, the court upheld the dismissal, thereby reinforcing agricultural exemptions in animal cruelty statutes and affirming the trial court's order. |
|
Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms, LLC |
This reflects Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief. In a press release, Plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens states, "[t]oday, one of the country’s largest poultry producers and a KFC supplier, Case Farms, was sued by animal-welfare charity Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) in Burke County District Court for its pattern of gross mismanagement and animal cruelty. The complaint comes on the heels of a 2021 undercover investigation by animal advocacy group Animal Outlook, revealing a trend of cruel and deadly abuse at a Morganton, N.C. Case Farms hatchery that processes more than 200,000 chicks daily. LIC accuses Case Farms of violating both industry standards and North Carolina law." |
|
LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS, RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO QUASH FIVE SUBPOENAS |
The court denied the defendants’ motion to quash five business records subpoenas issued to various county agencies, finding the requested documents directly relevant to the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants violated California animal cruelty laws. The court reaffirmed that the plaintiff, as a non-profit humane society, has standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Corporations Code sections 10404 and 14501, and that the subpoenas were not overbroad because they were limited to records concerning animals owned or abused by the named defendants. Regarding the official information privilege under Evidence Code section 1040, the court found no absolute bar to disclosure and, after balancing the interests, determined that the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice outweighed any potential confidentiality interests of the non-party agencies, especially since none of the agencies moved to quash or assert any privilege. The court further ruled that the parties’ existing stipulated protective order adequately safeguards any confidential business information or trade secrets that might be produced. Consequently, the court ordered the motion to quash denied, stayed the order’s effective date for fifteen days, and declined to award sanctions, finding the parties’ positions substantially justified. |
|
Legal Protections for Chickens |
|
