Friday, May 23, 2014

Lock v. Falkenstine case brief summary

Lock v. Falkenstine – Cockfighting
1.  FACTS: Ct was unsure whether cockfighting should be protected by the animal cruelty statute.
2.  ISSUE: Is a gamecock considered an animal statutorily?
a.  In past had been distinction between domestic animals and domestic fowl
b. Here language is not certain
3.  HOLDING: Roosters are not animals as defined by the statute, and cockfighting is not deemed illegal
a.  Men of ordinary intelligence can’t be expected to presume cocks = animals for purposes of fighting prohibition
b. Legislature can enact specific legislation in order to remove all doubt
4.  RULE: If we CAN define an animal and have not done so, then that is by choice, there is a reason behind it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...