Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Woodley case brief
640 S.E.2d 777
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
640 S.E.2d 777
CASE SYNOPSIS: The Lee
County Superior Court (North Carolina) entered a judgment that
forfeited all of defendant animal owners' rights in their animals
possessed by them, ordered removal of the animals from the control of
the animal owners, and granted temporary custody of the animals to
plaintiff animal welfare agency. The animal owners appealed.
FACTS: The animal welfare agency filed a complaint against the animal owners seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions that alleged the animal owners had abused and neglected a large number of dogs, as well as some birds, in their possession. Eventually, following a trial, the trial court entered a permanent injunction and temporary custody order so that the animal welfare agency could take custody and possession of the animals to protect and care for them. On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter since the animal owners could not show that the animal welfare agency was required to have its complaint verified, that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to the animal protection statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-1 et seq. (2005), and that the animal owners' remaining assignments of error were not argued in their brief and, thus, would not be reviewed.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: The animal welfare agency filed a complaint against the animal owners seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions that alleged the animal owners had abused and neglected a large number of dogs, as well as some birds, in their possession. Eventually, following a trial, the trial court entered a permanent injunction and temporary custody order so that the animal welfare agency could take custody and possession of the animals to protect and care for them. On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter since the animal owners could not show that the animal welfare agency was required to have its complaint verified, that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to the animal protection statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-1 et seq. (2005), and that the animal owners' remaining assignments of error were not argued in their brief and, thus, would not be reviewed.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment