Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denise Venero v. Prince George's County Maryland | Slip copy, 2024 WL 1285642 (D. Md. Mar. 26, 2024) | Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process. | Case | |||||||
| Department of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe | 94 S.Ct. 330 (1973) | 414 U.S. 44 (1973) |
The Washington Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries brought action for declaratory judgment that members of the Puyallup Indian tribe were not exempt from application of state fishery conservation measures. The Supreme Court held that commercial net fishing by Puyallup Indians, for which the Indians have treaty protection, Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689, forecloses the bar against net fishing of steelhead trout imposed by Washington State Game Department's regulation, which discriminates against the Puyallups, and as long as steelhead fishing is permitted, the regulation must achieve an accommodation between the Puyallups' net-fishing rights and the rights of sports fishermen. |
Case | ||||||
| Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd | Western Australia Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008, Magistrate C.P. Crawford |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Archivos |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 10 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 10 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 10 Núm 3 |
|
Policy |
