Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil - Biodiversity Treaty- Acceptance |
Brazil's Ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty: Decree No. 2, dated 3/2/94, |
Administrative | |||
| Brazil - Animal weflare - PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 (in portuguese) | PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 | Institui o Código Federal de Bem-Estar Animal, estabelecendo diretrizes e normas para a garantia de atendimento aos princípios de bem-estar animal nas atividades de controle animal, experimentação animal e produção animal, através da otimização dos processos de desenvolvimento econômico e científico, com o aprimoramento das técnicas e investimentos que garantam maior eficiência, lucratividade e operacionalidade, controle e prevenção sanitário-ambientais, capacitação e preservação das condições de bem-estar do trabalhador, bem como o atendimento à legislação e recomendações nacionais e internacionais. | Statute | ||
| Brazil - Animal Cruelty - Decreto-lei nº 24645, |
Art. 1º - Todos os animais existentes no País sno tutelados do Estado. |
Administrative | |||
| Brazil - Federal Decree on Anti-Cruelty |
This is a short summary of the federal decree that gives federal jurisdiction over some domestic animal issues. |
Administrative | |||
| Brazil | Lane Azevedo Clayton |
Brief Summary of Brazil's Legal Structure for Animal Issues |
Topical Introduction | ||
| Brayshaw v Liosatos | [2001] ACTSC 2 |
The appellant had informations laid against him alleging that he, as a person in charge of animals, neglected cattle 'without reasonable excuse' by failing to provide them with food. The appellant had been informed by a veterinarian that his treatment of the cattle was potentially a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and that they were in poor condition. The evidence admitted did not rule out the possibility that the appellant's feeding of the cattle accorded with 'maintenance rations' and the convictions were overturned. |
Case | ||
| Brans v. Extrom | 701 N.W.2d 163 (Mich.App.,2005) | 266 Mich.App. 216 (Mich.App.,2005) |
When the plaintiff accidentally stepped on the dog, the dog bit him. On the statutory claim, the jury found that the biting was with provocation even though from an unintentional act. On the common law claim, the jury found that the incident did not result from the abnormally dangerous propensities of the dog. The court affirmed, finding the trial court correctly instructed the jury that an unintentional act could constitute provocation under the dog-bite statute. |
Case | |
| Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) | 359 S.E.2d (780 N.C.,1987) | 320 N.C. 621 (1987) |
On grant of appeal from Branks v. Kern , 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. 1986). Cat owner brought negligence action against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after her hand was bitten while she held her own cat during a catheterization procedure. In reversing the Court of Appeals decision (348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. App. 1986)), the Supreme Court held that defendants in the instant case have met their burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the evidence showed that the danger was obvious to plaintiff and defendants only owed plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care. |
Case | |
| Branks v. Kern | 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C.App.,1986) | 348 S.E.2d 815 (1986) |
In this negligence action, a cat owner brought suit against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after she was bitten by her own cat while the cat was receiving treatment by the veterinarian. At issue, is whether the veterinarian owed a duty to the cat owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing the cat from harming the owner while the cat was being treated. In review of the lower court’s grant of motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that substantial issues of material fact existed to preclude the grant of summary judgment. However, this was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court. ( See , Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C.,1987)). |
Case | |
| Brandon v. Village of Maywood | 157 F. Supp.2d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001) |
Plaintiffs brought § 1983 action against village and police officers after botched drug bust in which bystander and dog were wounded. The court held that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in shooting of dog and the village did not have policies on police conduct that warranted liability. However, issues of fact precluded summary judgment on false imprisonment claim based on officers' assertion of immunity.
|
Case |
