Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food &
Agriculture case brief
74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff
appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(California) denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing that
defendant's ritualistic slaughter regulation authorized the inhumane
slaughter of poultry and, therefore, was inconsistent with the Humane
Slaughter Law.
FACTS: Plaintiff, a nonprofit organization that promoted the humane treatment of farm animals, filed a declaratory relief action against defendant, alleging that the ritualistic slaughter regulation authorized the inhumane slaughter of poultry and, therefore, was inconsistent with the Humane Slaughter Law (HSL), Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 19501. The trial court found that the regulation was consistent with the HSL, and entered judgment for defendant. The court held that the ritualistic slaughter regulation did not authorize the approval of inhumane methods of killing poultry. The regulation required that exemptions for other methods of ritualistic slaughter be humane and, therefore, was consistent with the HSL. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied summary judgment for plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: The judgment for defendant was affirmed because the ritualistic slaughter regulation did not authorize inhumane methods of killing poultry. The regulation required that exemptions for other methods of ritualistic slaughter be humane and, therefore, was consistent with the Humane Slaughter Law.
FACTS: Plaintiff, a nonprofit organization that promoted the humane treatment of farm animals, filed a declaratory relief action against defendant, alleging that the ritualistic slaughter regulation authorized the inhumane slaughter of poultry and, therefore, was inconsistent with the Humane Slaughter Law (HSL), Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 19501. The trial court found that the regulation was consistent with the HSL, and entered judgment for defendant. The court held that the ritualistic slaughter regulation did not authorize the approval of inhumane methods of killing poultry. The regulation required that exemptions for other methods of ritualistic slaughter be humane and, therefore, was consistent with the HSL. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court properly denied summary judgment for plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: The judgment for defendant was affirmed because the ritualistic slaughter regulation did not authorize inhumane methods of killing poultry. The regulation required that exemptions for other methods of ritualistic slaughter be humane and, therefore, was consistent with the Humane Slaughter Law.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment