RICHARD D. KIPER AND CENTRAL FLORIDA GREYHOUND COLLEGE, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-03-11
No. U-443
RAWLS, C. J., concurs., McCORD, J., dissents.
310 So. 2d 42 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The dissenting judge believes the described training operations violate Florida statutes against animal cruelty and constitute a public nuisance.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants operated a training racetrack for greyhound dogs, using live rabbits either released in an enclosure or attached to mechanical lures for th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
BOYER, Judge.

BOYER, Judge.

The State of Florida, by and through the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking to enjoin appellants from continuing an alleged public nuisance. The plaintiff, appellee here, adduced testimony from a single witness, seeking to establish by that witness that appellants’ actions were in violation of F.S. 828.02 and F.S. 828.12. At the close of the plaintiff’s case defendants (appellants here) moved for a judgment in their favor, in the nature of a directed verdict, which motion was denied. Defendants then called several witnesses and rested their case, renewing their motion which was again denied. The trial judge thereupon found that appellants were in violation of the above mentioned statutes and that their activities constituted a public nuisance, issuing the injunction prayed for. We reverse.

Our examination of the brief record reveals that the plaintiff below, appellee here, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence violation of F.S. 828.02 or F.S. 828.12, therefore the defendants’ motion for a judgment in their favor at the close of the plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all of the evidence should have been granted.

Even had violation of the above mentioned statutes been established the evidence falls far short of demonstrating the existence of a public nuisance.

Having determined that the order granting the injunction here appealed was improvidently issued we find it unnecessary to consider appellants’ remaining point relating to the constitutionality of the above mentioned statutes as applied to appellants by the order here appealed.

Reversed.

RAWLS, C. J., concurs.

McCORD, J., dissents.

Dissent
McCORD, Judge

McCORD, Judge

(dissenting).

This action was brought pursuant to § 828.12, Florida Statutes, which states as follows:

“Whoever unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or mutilates or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.-083.”

Section 828.02, Florida Statutes, defines the words “torture,” “torment,” and “cruelty” to include “every act, omission or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, except when done in the interest of medical science, permitted or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief.”

The evidence here shows that appellants operate a training racetrack for greyhound dogs. To train the dogs, appellants engage in two training operations. In one, appellants release live rabbits in an enclosure from which they cannot escape. Greyhounds are then turned into the enclosure where they run the rabbits down and chew them to pieces.

The other training operation consists of attaching live rabbits to mechanical lures. The lure and rabbit are then propelled around a racetrack with the dogs in hot pursuit with a mechanical device emitting a wailing sound. The testimony was that during the course of the trip the rabbit’s eyes bulge and his mouth is open. The dogs are allowed to catch the rabbit and thereafter, if enough life is left in him, he is given another run around the track on the mechanical arm.

I am of the opinion that these operations are a continuing violation of the above statutes and constitute a public nuisance. I find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in his enjoining such operations and no denial of equal protection of the laws or of due process to appellants resulting therefrom. These training procedures do not give the rabbit the usual sporting chance which is given game animals in the normal hunt. I would affirm.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • The Word OF Life Ministry, Inc. v. Miller, 778 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …h DCA 2000); Doe v. Evans, 718 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hemphill v. Zion Hope Primitive Baptist Church of Pensacola, Inc., 447 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Umberger v. Johns, 363 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Rolle v. Judge, 310 So. 2d 42, 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); cf. Kond v. Mudryk, 769 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). [T]he doctrine of either side is ... of no moment here. The courts are not concerned with the articles of faith of either, nor with the question as to whether o…
  • Rolle v. Judge, 324 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1975)
    …Certiorari denied. 310 So. 2d 42. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON, ENGLAND and SUND-BERG, JJ., concur.…
  • …50 (Fla.1952); Hemphill v. Zion Hope Primitive Baptist Church of Pensacola, Inc., 447 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Covington v. Bowers, 442 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Umberger v. Johns, 363 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Rolle v. Judge, 310 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA) cert. denied 324 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1975). Those decisions involve independent congregations which are not part of a hierarchical church organization.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw