Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 78
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 00949-2022-PA/TC Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete | EXP. N.° 00949-2022-PA/TC |
This case is about pet ownership and a person’s constitutional rights within vacation rental spaces. |
Case |
| 00949-2022-PA/TC Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete | 00949-2022-PA/TC |
Este caso trata de la tenencia de mascotas y de los derechos constitucionales de las personas en los espacios de alquiler vacacional. |
Case |
| 07392-2013-PU: Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC, 2013 - Peru | 07392-2013-PU | Esta sentencia resuelve los disensos de los jueces en el caso Serrano vs. Horse Brown SAC. Se discuten las ideas de protección de los animales no humanos y la prevalencia de los deberes positivos y negativos para con la naturaleza, así como los derechos constitucionales peruanos relativos a la propiedad y a la libertad personal en general. La sentencia resuelve que la demanda era infundada y debe entenderse en el marco de la ley de Amparo. | Case |
| 2620-2003-HC/TC Pedro Ignacio Paz de Noboa Nidal v. Tumbes | 2620-2003-HC/TC | El apelante en este caso presentó un recurso de hábeas corpus por su rata mascota contra el apelado, que tomó posesión de la rata y supuestamente amenazó con arrestar al apelante por expresar sus opiniones, que no eran favorables al apelado. El tribunal mencionó la "vida e integridad" de la rata, pero en última instancia sostuvo que el caso era un "disparate" y ofensivo para el propósito del tribunal. El tribunal declaró el caso infundado. | Case |
| 2620-2003-HC/TC Pedro Ignacio Paz de Noboa Nidal v. Tumbes | 2620-2003-HC/TC | The appellant in this case brought a writ of habeas corpus for his pet rat against the appellee, who took possession of the rat and allegedly threatened to arrest the appellant for expressing his opinions, which were not in favor of the appellee. The court mentioned the “life and integrity” of the rat, but ultimately held that the case was “nonsense” and offensive to the purpose of the court. The court declared the case unfounded. | Case |
| Case of Petunia, the pet pig (2022) - Peru | Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru | The case concerns a legal dispute between the plaintiff and the District Municipality of San Ramón over the plaintiff's right to keep her pet pig, Petunia, at her dwelling. The plaintiff filed an Amparo petition to invalidate four administrative resolutions and dismiss an administrative sanctioning procedure that ordered Petunia's removal. She argued that the resolutions violated her rights to due process, personal development, and privacy, emphasizing the emotional bond with Petunia and Petunia's welfare rights. The lower court denied the Amparo, suggesting administrative procedures as the proper recourse. However, on March 16, 2022, the Juzgado Civil de La Merced granted the petition, invalidated the resolutions, and allowed the plaintiff to keep Petunia under good sanitary conditions. | Case |
| Caso 02437-2013, Jane Margarita Cósar Camacho Y otros Contra Resolucion De Fojas 258 - Service dogs- Peru (2014) | Caso 02437-2013 | Plaintiff, a visually impaired woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry of Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allowed to enter to the supermarkets with their guide dogs. | Case |
| Chang v. Alzamora, 01936-2017-PHC/TC - Peru | 01936-2017-PHC/TC | The plaintiff brought a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of himself and his two young daughters against the defendant for violating their rights to individual liberty and family tranquility. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s dogs barked so frequently and loudly that the family could not rest at night and travel through the halls out of fear of being attacked. The court discussed the abstract subject matter’s constitutionality, the purpose of a habeas corpus lawsuit, and the right to personal integrity regarding the plaintiff’s claim. It ultimately held that the claim must be admitted for processing in the present constitutional venue on an exceptional basis. | Case |
| Chang v. Alzamora, 01936-2017-PHC/TC - Peru | 01936-2017-PHC/TC | El demandante interpuso una demanda de habeas corpus en su nombre y en el de sus dos hijas pequeñas contra el demandado por violación de sus derechos a la libertad individual y a la tranquilidad familiar. El demandante alegó que los perros del demandado ladraban con tanta frecuencia y tan fuerte que la familia no podía descansar por la noche ni desplazarse por los pasillos por miedo a ser atacada. El tribunal debatió la constitucionalidad de la materia abstracta, la finalidad de una demanda de habeas corpus y el derecho a la integridad personal en relación con la reclamación del demandante. En última instancia, sostuvo que la demanda debía admitirse a trámite en la presente sede constitucional con carácter excepcional. | Case |
| Criminal Sentence "Dachi" Case, 2023 - Peru | 01128-2023-0-1814-JR-PE-03 |
In this matter, a man repeatedly stabbed his girlfriend’s dog, “Dachi,” after she confessed to having an affair with his friend. The man had been drinking and taking drugs, and in his anger, took violent action against Dachi as revenge against his girlfriend. |
Case |