Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil - Constitutional Provision - Animal | TITLE Vlll, CHAP. VI, ART. 225 |
Article 8 of the Constitution provides for legal concern about animals.(See, VII. of Paragraph 1.) |
Statute | ||
| Brazil - Constitution (Portuguese) - Constituiclo Federal do Brazil - Protecclo dos Animais | CHAPTER VI, ART. 225 |
Constituiclo Federal do Brazil - Protecclo dos Animais |
Statute | ||
| 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 |
