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.
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...