Farming or Food Production

Summary:

Taylor v. Burgess is a landmark case in Kentucky allowing non-economic damages for an animal. Judy Taylor's two horses were stolen and sold for slaughter. Taylor then successfully sued for non-economic damages.

Summary: This action challenges the exclusion of chickens, turkeys, and other birds from the protections of the federal Humane Slaughter Act (HSA). The Levine plaintiffs’ complaint challenges a USDA Notice issued on September 28, 2005, titled “Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter.” The Notice states that there is no federal statute governing the humane slaughter of poultry, but recommends that the poultry industry adopt voluntary measures to improve slaughter practices. Plaintiffs all contend that by excluding these animals from the protections of the Act exposes them to greater risk of food-borne illness. The inhumane methods of slaughtering the birds have been linked in scientific studies to greater incidence of food-borne pathogens in the meat. In their complaint, Plaintiffs request an order finding the act of excluding poultry from the HSA is arbitrary and capricious, and enjoining the USDA from excluding poultry species from the HSA. In its order regarding defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court found that plaintiffs credibly alleged that they face an imminent exposure to heightened risk that they will become ill from consuming inhumanely slaughtered animals. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss the consumer claims was denied.

Summary:

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction, and Request for a Hearing requesting that the Court, “temporarily and preliminarily enjoi[n] and declar[e] unlawful a Final Rule just promulgated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) that creates a “fee-for-service” inspection system designed to facilitate the continued transport and slaughter of American horses for human consumption abroad.” In an memorandum opinion, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction because it found that plaintiffs do not demonstrate the factors necessary for the court to issue a preliminary injunction.

Summary: In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o—and thus are committing an unlawful business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 653o is preempted by federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court also agreed, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products. The accompanying regulations set forth a comprehensive national policy for the protection of endangered species such as the three kangaroo species involved in this case. Application of section 653o would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress if applied to the defendants.

Summary: This case involves an action by plaintiffs, consumers who have eaten pork from defendant's company, against defendant pork-producers under California's anti-cruelty and unlawful business practices laws. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant's use of gestation crates for pregnant sows is illegal under California Penal Code Section 597t (a section that requires anyone who keeps an animal confined in an enclosed area must provide it with an adequate exercise area). Thus, defendants' violation of 597t provides a predicate for violation under California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200, better known as the unlawful business or practice act. Further, plaintiffs contend that the Farmer John brand misleads reasonable consumers into believing that such pork products are produced in a humane fashion. Farmer John's parent company, Hormel Foods, states in its annual report that it has a "zero tolerance" for the inhumane treatment of animals.

Summary:

Plaintiff seeks an injunction against state of Texas to stop the enforcement of a law prohibiting the slaughter of horses in Texas as the law is improper on a number of bases.

Summary:

Plaintiff organization suggest that the UK government has not adopted adequate regulations for the protection of broiler chickens, under the obligations of EEC Directives or under UK law.

Summary:

The purpose of this South Burlington, Vermont ordinance is to provide standards for keeping no more than 6 noncommercial, domesticated female chickens in a lot and to ensure that the domesticated chickens do not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood properties. To do so, the city of South Burlington requires a person to obtain an annual permit and to demonstrate compliance with the criteria and standards listed in this ordinance. A violation of this ordinance will result in a $25 fine and may result in a permit revocation; a violation of this ordinance also provides grounds for removing chickens and chicken-related structures from a lot.

Summary:

In Dundee, Oregon, chickens are permitted within the city only in conformance with the following ordinances. For instance, a single-family dwelling may keep up to six chickens, and the offspring under the age of four months of these chickens, on the lot or parcel on which the dwelling resides; roosters. however, are not allowed. Additionally, these ordinances prohibit residents from slaughtering chickens within the city unless certain conidtions are met. Penalties for violations are also provided.

Summary:

This Newcastle, Oklahoma ordinance declares it to be unlawful and an offense for any person to keep any animal within the corporate limits of the city except as provided by these provisions. A violation of this ordinance will result in a fine not to exceed $200.