Results
Displaying 3011 - 3020 of 6844
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment 00017-2010-PI/TC, 2011 - Peru | 00017-2010-PI/TC | The Bar Association of North Lima brought this suit against the Congress of the Republic of Peru regarding several pieces of legislation promoting the development of non-sporting public shows, such as bullfights and cockfights. The Bar Association claimed that the legislation was unconstitutional as it contradicted the right to equality as well as several fiscal principles by taxing non-sporting events but not sporting events. It further claimed that through these practices, the State neglected its duty to guarantee participation in Peru’s national cultural heritage. Congress argued that the claim should be unfounded as no one had been discriminated against based on demographic factors. The court held that the claim was unfounded, as bullfighting is a regulated cultural manifestation and the Peruvian Constitution allows the legislators to use their discretion to impose taxes. | Case | ||
| Judgment 00048-2004-AI, 2005 - Peru | 00048-2004-AI | This case challenged the constitutionality of Law 28258: Mine Royalty Law. Most pertinently, articles 1-5 of the law establish guidelines and regulations regarding the use and royalty of mineral materials. The court discussed aspects of natural preservation, social equality, and liberty regarding the use and taxation of such materials. Ultimately, the court held that the claim was unfounded, and required transparency in how the funds were allocated to allow civil society to be aware of their uses. | Case | ||
| Judgment 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01, use of horses by law enforcement - Peru | 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01 | This case concerns the use of horses as transportation and control by police. The suit was brought by the Peruvian Institute of Legal Counsel for the Environment and Biodiversity against the Ministry of the Interior to challenge a law relating to the police force and the use of horses. The Institute cites Law 30407, which prescribes the protection of animal welfare, as the horses are put in peril when used in policing matters. In its ruling, the court discussed issues of animal welfare, constitutionality, and judicial precedent, including the interpretation of the word "mounted" in Article 229(6) of the Police Law Regulations, which specifies the functions of the special police and when the use of "mounted police" is justified. Animal welfare concerns led the court to partially invalidate the lower court decision, removing the word "mounted" from numeral 6 of Article 229 of the Police Law Regulations. However, the ruling did not prohibit the use of horses for crowd control. | Case | ||
| Judgment 07392-2013-PHC/TC, Horse Brown SAC v. El Servicio de Parques de Lima- Peru | 07392-2013-PHC/TC | This judgment resolves the dissents of the judges as written in the Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC case. It discusses ideas of the protection of nonhuman animals and the prevalence of positive and negative duties to nature, as well as Peruvian constitutional rights concerning property and overall personal liberty. The judgment resolves that the lawsuit was unfounded and must be understood within the framework of Amparo law. | Case | ||
| Judicial Recognition of The Interests of Animals - A New Tort | David Favre | 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 333 |
The article examines how the interest of humans are represented in the legal system and how the interests of animals might better be brought into the legal system with the creation of a new tort for the benefit of animals. |
Article | |
| Juelfs v. Gough | 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002) | In this case, the husband and wife had agreed to shared ownership of their dog, which the lower court incorporated into its order.Based on danger the dog faced by other dogs in the wife’s home and increased contention between the parties, the lower court next gave the husband custody with an order for the wife’s visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband. The state’s Supreme Court affirmed the modified order. | Case | ||
| Julie Marie Grizzel v. James William Hickey d/b/a S & S Farms; Ron Lee Omara and S & S Farms, Inc. aka S.S. Farms Linn County, I |
The plaintiff in this Oregon case brought an action alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, who was a licensed animal dealer. Plaintiff owned “My Girl,” a purebred cocker spaniel, whom plaintiff cared for and enclosed in a secure, fenced backyard. While My Girl was secure in her backyard, two other individuals seized her and transported her to defendant Hickey (who was known to be engaged in the business of selling animals to research laboratories). |
Pleading | |||
| Jurewicz v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 891 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.D.C, 2012) | 2012 WL 4130515 (D.D.C, 2012) |
Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the United States Humane Society requested that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) disclose a certain Animal Welfare Act form. Arguing that two FOIA exemptions prevented the USDA from releasing certain information on this form (the number of dogs that they buy and sell each year and their annual revenue from dog sales), three Missouri dog breeders and dealers sought to prevent this information’s disclosure. After finding that the public interests in disclosing the information outweighed the privacy concerns for the breeders, the district court granted the USDA's and the U.S. Humane Society's motion for summary judgment.
|
Case | |
| Just Puppies, Inc. v. Brown | 123 F.4th 652 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024) | 2024 WL 5063822 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024) | The plaintiffs, including retail pet stores and a USDA-licensed breeder, challenged Maryland's 2021 Pet Store Statute, which prohibits retail pet stores from selling or transferring dogs and cats, alleging it conflicts with the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and violates the Commerce Clause. The Pet Store Statute aims to curb the sale of dogs from "puppy mills" by banning retail pet stores and brokers from selling dogs, while exempting breeders who sell animals born at their establishments. Plaintiffs argued that the statute effectively shifts dog sales from regulated retail pet stores sourcing from out-of-state breeders to unregulated internet sales and local breeders, undermining the AWA's regulatory framework. The AWA establishes federal standards for the humane treatment of animals, including licensing requirements for breeders and brokers, but explicitly allows states to enact additional animal welfare regulations. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the AWA preempts the Pet Store Statute, finding no conflict because the AWA does not occupy the field of animal welfare regulation and permits concurrent state laws. Plaintiffs also argued that the statute obstructs the AWA's objectives by eliminating USDA-licensed brokers from the Maryland market, but the court found no evidence that the statute impedes federal licensing or inspection processes. The court dismissed plaintiffs' Commerce Clause claims, finding no discriminatory purpose or effect against out-of-state breeders, as the statute applies equally to in-state and out-of-state entities and does not prohibit interstate sales. The statute allows out-of-state breeders to sell directly to Maryland consumers, either in person or online, and does not regulate sales occurring wholly outside Maryland. The court upheld the statute's legitimacy, recognizing Maryland's interest in addressing puppy mills, protecting consumers from unhealthy animals, and reducing shelter populations, which are valid state police powers. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the Pet Store Statute is not preempted by the AWA and does not violate the Commerce Clause, as it regulates animal welfare within Maryland's traditional authority. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. | Case | |
| Just Puppies, Inc. v. Frosh | 438 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Md. 2020), vacated and remanded, No. 20-1631, 2021 WL 4452349 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021) | The State of Maryland passed a “No More Puppy-Mill Pups Act” which went into effect January 1, 2020. The Act prohibits retail pet stores in Maryland from offering for sale or otherwise transferring or disposing of cats or dogs. Four pet stores, a dog breeder, and a dog broker filed suit against Brian Frosh, the Attorney General of Maryland, the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Maryland Attorney General (CPD), the Maryland House Economic Matters Committee, and the Maryland State Senate Finance Committee seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Act as well as a declaration that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defendants were all entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, unless an exception were to apply. Under the Ex parte Young exception “private citizens may sue state officials in their official capacities in federal court to obtain prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law.” The CPD and Committee Defendants were not State officials and, therefore, they did not fall within the Ex parte Young exception. The Ex parte Young exception, however, applied to Mr. Frosh as he was the Attorney General of Maryland since he had some connection with the enforcement of the Act. In Counts I, II, and III, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the Act discriminated against out-of-state breeders and brokers in its text, in its effect, or in its purpose. Count IV alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act was preempted by the AWA. The Court found that prohibiting Maryland pet stores from selling dogs or cats had no effect on the operation of the AWA. The Puppy-Mill Act's impact on pet stores did not clash with the AWA, because pet stores were explicitly exempt from the AWA. Count V alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to the equal protection of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court found no merit in this argument. Count VI asserted that the Act created a monopoly prohibited by Article 41 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Court found that the Puppy-Mill Act did not constitute an exclusive right to sell cats and dog in Maryland. Although the Act prohibited brick and mortar stores from participating in the sale of cats and dogs, consumers still had a plethora of choices when seeking to obtain a pet, including rescue shelters, animal control units, USDA licensed breeders and brokers, and unregulated hobby breeders. The Court ultimately dismissed all claims against the CPD and the Committee Defendants and allowed the claims against Brian Frosh to proceed. | Case |