S.D. Ohio· 12/20/2012
Wilkins v. Daniels
Citations
- 913 F. Supp. 2d 517
- 2012 WL 6644465
- 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180321
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that exotic animal ownership implicates a limited property interest such that no fundamental constitutional right is at stake and a rational basis review applies
- explaining that, for freedom of association purposes, the government does not compel the owner of regulated animals into qualifying for a wild animal act exemption through accreditation merely by providing exemptions for accredited owners
- noting that any source of property right would derive from state law
- “A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy whose purpose is to preserve the status quo.”
- “A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy whose purpose is to preserve the status quo.”
- analyzing the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Smith
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 3,324×
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 2,938×
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court· 1943-06-14· cited 2,477×
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-01· cited 2,387×
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court· 1992-06-29· cited 2,333×
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court· 1922-12-11· cited 1,990×
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court· 1982-06-30· cited 1,570×
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court· 1984-06-26· cited 1,423×
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense BoardSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 1,377×
- Wooley v. MaynardSupreme Court· 1977-04-20· cited 1,253×
- Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court· 2005-05-23· cited 1,235×
- Yee v. City of EscondidoSupreme Court· 1992-04-01· cited 953×
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.Supreme Court· 2006-03-06· cited 944×
- Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1979-12-04· cited 940×
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of MarylandSupreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 846×
- Leary v. DaeschnerSixth Circuit· 2000-09-20· cited 649×
- Andrus v. AllardSupreme Court· 1979-11-27· cited 585×
- Officer Melissa Kallstrom v. City of ColumbusSixth Circuit· 1998-02-12· cited 452×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.