Justia Animal / Dog Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. over the interpretation of a patent licensing agreement. The agreement, signed in 2000, pertained to a peptide used to test for Lyme disease in dogs. The agreement stipulated different royalty rates for different types of products, depending on what tests were included. The dispute arose over the interpretation of two royalty provisions, one for 1% and the other for 2.5%, which could both be read to apply to the same sales of goods. IDEXX Laboratories had been paying the lower royalty rate, but the University argued that the higher rate should have been applied.The trial court ruled in favor of the University, concluding that the licensing agreement was clear and unambiguous and that the University was entitled to recover the unpaid royalties claimed plus accrued interest. On appeal, IDEXX Laboratories argued for the first time that the licensing agreement was ambiguous. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that both interpretations of the royalty provisions were reasonable and conflicting, and therefore the agreement was ambiguous. It reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It found that the royalty provisions were not ambiguous when read in the context of the licensing agreement itself and the objective circumstances in which the agreement was produced. The court concluded that the provisions were most reasonably interpreted to require royalties on IDEXX Laboratories' products at the higher rate stipulated in the agreement. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that the Texas Farm Animal Activity Act (the Act), Tex. Civ. Proc. & Rem. Code 87.001-87.005, does not apply to ranchers and ranch hands, holding that the court of appeals did not err.The Act limits liability for injury to "a participant in a farm animal activity or livestock show" that results from an "inherent risk" of those activities. Raul Zuniga worked full-time for Conway and Marlene Waak to work cattle on a ranch, landscape, and cut hay. Zuniga died after being trampled. Plaintiffs, Zuniga's family, sued the Waaks, on wrongful death and survival claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Waaks, concluding that the Act barred Plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Zuniga was not "a participant in a farm animal activity" for whose injuries and death the Act limits liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act does not cover ranchers and ranch hands and, therefore, did not shield the Waaks from liability for their negligence resulting in Zuniga's death. View "Waak v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Alfonso and Lydia Lira owned a German Shepherd named Monte Carlo. After Monte escaped from Lydia’s property, the City of Houston’s animal control department, known as BARC, picked up Monte and gave him to a Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR) volunteer to foster the dog. When Lydia discovered that BARC had transferred Monte to GHGSDR, the Liras requested Monte’s return, but GHGSDR refused to return Monte. The Liras sued GHGSDR, asserting, among other claims, a claim for conversion. The trial court entered a permanent injunction directing GHGSDR to return Monte to the Liras. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the Liras had lost their right to recover possession of Monte. At issue on appeal was whether the City ordinances divested the Liras of their ownership. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the relevant ordinances did not expressly or impliedly divest the Liras of their ownership rights to Monte; and (2) the trial court did not err in concluding that Monte belonged to the Liras and enjoining GHGSDR to return him to his owners. View "Lira v. Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc." on Justia Law