In da courts, in brief

• A federal suit has been filed, and cruelty charges are being investigated, regarding the alleged shooting massacre of companion animals in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
• Two cases brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund have been decided recently:
• The ALDF, joined by law enforcement interests, challenged an Oregon measure which, would arguably hinder forfeiture of abused, neglected, or abandoned animals. In Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected their challenge, which claimed that Measure 3 unconstitutionally required voters to vote on two separate amendments at once.
• The group's suit against the USDA for failing to take action on guidelines for nonhuman primates is going ahead. ALDF v. Veneman (pdf, html cache). The Ninth Circuit opinion, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the claim, has sustained discussions of constitutional standing and the reviewability of agency (in)action, as well as a stinging dissent by Judge Kozinski. ALDF has the complaint and motion to dismiss.
• In People v. Leach (pdf), a man who raised rabbits for food for years killed one in front of a police officer and was convicted under Michigan's felony cruelty law; the appellate court affirms.
• The titled respondent in a recent Illinois dog bite case, People v. Tara, is canine. (She loses.)
• A Kentucky court upholds a county's ordinance banning possession of pit bulls. Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court (pdf, html cache) (hat tip: Kentucky Law). With regard to the appellant's challenge as to the reasonableness of the law, the court acknowledges recent authority to the contrary, but defers to late 1980s/early 1990s decisions holding that pit bulls are inherently vicious.
• Two somewhat recent decisions apply the firefighter's rule in the animal context. The firefighter's rule reflects the idea that people employed to face certain risks should not be able to sue people who create those risks. In Brady v. White (pdf, html cache), a district court in Delaware found that a veterinarian assumed the risk of handing a wounded dog, and could not sue for injuries from handling the animal. In Priebe v. Nelson (pdf, html cache), the California Supreme Court extended its preexisting veterinarian's rule to kennel operators.