Farming or Food Production

Displaying 371 - 380 of 508
Titlesort descending Summary
Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co.


Plaintiffs sued defendant corporation for breach of warranty as to fitness of purpose of poultry feed concentrate after egg production dropped, hens became malnourished, and an unusual amount of picking and cannibalism developed. As to the issue of damages, the Supreme Court held instruction that plaintiff was entitled to damages in amount of market value of chickens destroyed and that provided formula by which market value of suitable replacements could be determined was correct.
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LCC


A neighboring landowner brought a nuisance claim against a dairy farm when the dairy farm decided to expand its operations; the dairy farm, however, used Indiana’s Right to Farm Act as an affirmative defense. Agreeing with the dairy farm, the trial court granted the dairy farm’s motion for summary judgment.  Upon appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
People v. Hsiung In this appeal arising from convictions for trespass and conspiracy related to animal rights protests at poultry farms, the defendant, Wayne Hansen Hsiung, co-founded Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and participated in "open rescues" at Sunrise Farms and Reichardt Duck Farm, where he and others entered private property without permission to document animal conditions and remove animals they believed were suffering. The defendant asserted that the trial court erroneously deprived him of presenting a complete defense by excluding evidence and jury instructions on his good-faith mistake of law predicated on the necessity defense. The court held that while the necessity defense was legally unavailable as a justification because the actions were premeditated rather than responses to an imminent emergency, the defendant was constitutionally entitled to present his honest but mistaken belief that necessity justified his conduct to negate the specific intent required for trespass with intent to interfere with a business (Penal Code § 602(k)) and conspiracy. The appellate court found that the trial court’s limitation of the mistake-of-law instruction solely to Penal Code § 597e (providing a narrow justification for providing food or water to impounded animals) and its exclusion of expert legal opinions on necessity violated the defendant’s right to present a defense, as such evidence was relevant to whether he possessed the requisite criminal intent. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions for conspiracy to commit trespass (count 1) and trespass with intent to interfere with a lawful business (count 4) and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the conviction for trespass by refusing to leave property (count 2).
Perez v. County of Monterey In this California case, the plaintiffs sued to challenge the validity of the County of Monterey rooster-keeping ordinance, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The ordinance limits residents to no more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping permit and also describes care and keeping requirements. The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the constitution and entered judgment for the City. Plaintiffs here appeal that decision, arguing that the ordinance: (1) takes property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) infringes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce; (3) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) is a prohibited bill of attainder; and (5) violates the rights to privacy and to possess property guaranteed by the California Constitution. With respect to the Fifth Amendment taking challenge, the court found that the regulatory takings argument failed because there is no evidence that the ordinance affected plaintiffs or that they even applied for or were eligible for a permit. As to the interstate commerce challenge, plaintiffs provided no evidence that the ordinance would cause excess roosters to be divested from owners and sold in commerce to support this claim. As to Equal Protection, the plaintiffs correctly assert that the ordinance treats people differently based on age (i.e., students engaged in 4-H or FFA activities are exempted from the four-rooster limitation). However, the court found that the county stated a legitimate objective of public health and safety and this differential treatment of a non-suspect class advances that interest. Finally, the court found the ordinance was not a bill of attainder since it prospectively regulates roosters and also that it does not violate California's right to privacy and property possession. Indeed, the court found that plaintiff did not identify a specific privacy interest implicated by the ordinance. Thus, the judgment was affirmed.
Petersheim v. Corum


Driver struck bull that had wandered onto a public highway and driver was killed.  Court of appeals ruled for wife in a wrongful death action against the bull's owner.  The owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the bull's escape.
Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc.


In this California case, PCRM, a nonprofit health-advocacy organization, filed suit for injunctive relief against Tyson alleging that the company made false and deceptive representations about chicken products that it sold to consumers in California. The complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in two advertising campaigns, which disseminated false and deceptive statements about its products in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500. Tyson filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the amendment to the anti-SLAPP statute, which was enacted while the appeal was pending did not apply to actions against sellers of goods as to the representations about or promotions of those goods. Further,

by holding that Tyson was not entitled to invoke the anti-SLAPP remedy, the court stated that it did not compromise or prejudice Tyson’s right to raise First Amendment issues in defense of PCRM's suit

.
Protocol on Animal Welfare Under Amsterdam Treaty


Short Section added to the treaty which created the European Union, the Amsterdam Treaty, which acknowledges animal welfare as a factor when creating policy positions.
PROTOCOLO RELATIVO À PROTECÇÃO E AO BEM-ESTAR DOS ANIMAIS


Tratado de Amsterdão



Protocolo anexo ao Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia
Qaddura v. State
The court held that the owner of livestock who placed them in the care of his tenant while he was on vacation for a month, but failed to provide his tenant with enough food for the livestock could be found guilty under the animal cruelty statute.

  
Queensland - Food Production - Agricultural Regulations

Pages