{ "id": 8375565, "name": "ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BARBARA WOODLEY AND ROBERT WOODLEY, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Woodley", "decision_date": "2007-02-06", "docket_number": "No. COA06-358", "first_page": "594", "last_page": "597", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 N.C. App. 594" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633574 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "624 S.E.2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634819 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) and citing State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 731 n.1, 616 S.E.2d 515, 531 n.1 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/624/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3802205 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3792897 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) and citing State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 731 n.1, 616 S.E.2d 515, 531 n.1 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "776-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8897426 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 S.E.2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-2 over plaintiff's claim to the extent it seeks an injunction against defendant by alleging the cruel treatment of animals, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-1.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N.C. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8469320 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-2 over plaintiff's claim to the extent it seeks an injunction against defendant by alleging the cruel treatment of animals, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-1.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/168/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" }, { "page": "369" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613885 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" }, { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511527, 1511629, 1511511, 1511639, 1511292 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0675-01", "/nc/356/0675-02", "/nc/356/0675-03", "/nc/356/0675-05", "/nc/356/0675-04" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249087 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2504642, 2506949, 2507462, 2504142, 2508213 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0666-05", "/nc/332/0666-02", "/nc/332/0666-01", "/nc/332/0666-04", "/nc/332/0666-03" ] }, { "cite": "419 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 N.C. App. 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527250 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/107/0120-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 474, "char_count": 7951, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.16991218019283e-07, "percentile": 0.5861370682228964 }, "sha256": "29b337a77076a04c736c9ad80da9afbbcf37c0210cf48cb2d5d3f05c772e7c5e", "simhash": "1:58eae22f723a347f", "word_count": 1244 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:54.793724+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BARBARA WOODLEY AND ROBERT WOODLEY, Defendants-Appellants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nBarbara and Robert Woodley (defendants) appeal from an injunction forfeiting all rights in the animals possessed by defendants and the removal of the animals from defendants\u2019 control, and an order granting temporary custody of the animals to the Animal Legal Defense Fund (plaintiff), both of which were entered 12 April 2005 by Judge Albert A. Corbett, Jr. After careful review of the record, we find defendants\u2019 contentions on appeal to be without merit; we therefore affirm the trial court\u2019s order and injunction.\nOn 23 December 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions under North Carolina\u2019s Civil Remedy for Protection of Animals statute (Section 19A). N.C. Gen. Stat.'\u00a7 19A-1 et seq. (2005). Plaintiff alleged that, defendants had abused and neglected a large number of dogs (as well as some birds) in their possession. Defendants answered the complaint on 7 January 2005. On 13 January 2005, after the lower court reviewed the evidence, held two hearings, and visited defendants\u2019 property, Judge Resson O. Faircloth entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from any further violation of the statute, requiring defendants to properly maintain those parts of their property in which the animals were kept, and granting plaintiff access to defendants\u2019 property for the purpose of giving care to the animals.\nOn 12 April 2005, following a trial, Judge Corbett entered a permanent injunction and temporary custody order. Defendants, who were also charged and convicted criminally, filed notice of appeal on 11 May 2005. For the reasons stated below, the injunction and order of the trial court is affirmed.\nDefendants first contend that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter because plaintiffs complaint was not verified as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-3. However, as plaintiff points out in its brief, \u00a7 19A-3 applies only to preliminary injunctions. In fact, the section is titled \u201cPreliminary injunction,\u201d and no mention is made of permanent injunctions throughout the section. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-3 (2005). Moreover, \u00a7 19A-4, titled \u201cPermanent injunction,\u201d makes no mention of verified complaints; according to that section, the trial court is bound by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 65. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-4 (2005). Rule 65 is also devoid of any mention of a verified complaint requirement; indeed, this Court has held that verification of complaint is not a condition for issuance of an injunction under Rule 65. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 65 (2005); Moore v. Wykle, 107 N.C. App. 120, 139, 419 S.E.2d 164, 176 (1992), cert. denied, 332 N.C. 666, 424 S.E.2d 405 (1992). Because defendants gave notice of appeal only for the permanent injunction entered 12 April 2005, and not the preliminary injunction entered 13 January 2005, the issue of whether it was error for the trial court to issue the preliminary injunction is not before this Court. Defendants\u2019 first assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendants also argue that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-1 is unconstitutional in that it purports to grant standing to persons who have suffered no injury. To support their contention, defendants rely on Article IV, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution, which states, \u201cThere shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action . . . .\u201d N.C. Const, art. IV, \u00a7 13. This reliance, however, is misplaced. While defendants contend that \u201cthis provision places a constitutional limit on standing in civil actions to those individuals who have suffered some individualized and concrete harm,\u201d they rely almost entirely on federal authority. However, as defendants themselves note, \u201cNorth Carolina courts are not constrained by the \u2018case or controversy\u2019 requirement of Article 3 of the United States Constitution.\u201d See Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 110, 114, 574 S.E.2d 48, 52 (2002), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675, 577 S.E.2d 628 (2003). Moreover, defendants, in maintaining that our Constitution restricts our legislature\u2019s ability to give standing by statute, simply misinterpret the language of the Constitution. In actuality, \u201c[tjhis section abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, leaving such rights and remedies to be enforced in the one court, which theretofore had administered simply legal rights.\u201d Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N.C. 578, 624, 182 S.E. 341, 369 (1935).\nIt is telling that our Supreme Court recently determined that our courts have subject matter jurisdiction of suits brought under Section 19A by organizations such as plaintiff. See Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir Cty. SPCA, Inc., 168 N.C. App. 298, 304, 607 S.E.2d 317, 321 (2005) (\u201cThe trial court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-2 over plaintiff\u2019s claim to the extent it seeks an injunction against defendant by alleging the cruel treatment of animals, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-1.\u201d). Moreover, as defendants themselves note, this Court has recently held that Section 19A \u201cexpresses] the General Assembly\u2019s intent that the broadest category of persons or organizations be deemed \u2018[a] real party in interest\u2019 when contesting cruelty to animals.\u201d Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Robeson County, 164 N.C. App. 366, 371, 595 S.E.2d 773, 776-77 (2004). Because we hold that Article IV, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution merely \u201cabolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity,\u201d Reynolds, 208 N.C. at 624, 182 S.E. at 369, rather than placing limitations on the legislature\u2019s ability to create actions by statute, defendants\u2019 contention is without merit.\nDefendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error were not argued in their brief. \u201cAssignments of error not set out in the appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d State v. McNeill, 360 N.C. 231, 241, 624 S.E.2d 329, 336 (2006) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) and citing State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 731 n.1, 616 S.E.2d 515, 531 n.1 (2005)). Accordingly, we will not review defendants\u2019 unargued assignments of error. Having found no meritorious assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur.\n. The civil and criminal trials were joined; defendants\u2019 appeal of their guilty verdicts is presently pending in the Superior Court.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, by Adam H. Chames and James J. Hefferan, Jr., for the plaintiff-appellee.", "Staton, Doster, Post & Silverman, by Norman C. Post, Jr., for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BARBARA WOODLEY AND ROBERT WOODLEY, Defendants-Appellants\nNo. COA06-358\n(Filed 6 February 2007)\n1. Injunctions \u2014 permanent\u2014unverified complaint \u2014 sufficiency\nAn unverified complaint was sufficient to obtain a permanent injunction in an animal cruelty case. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 19A-3, which requires verification, applies only to preliminary injunctions.\n2. Constitutional Law\u2014 North Carolina \u2014 law and equity merged \u2014 private action for injunction\nThe statute allowing private actions for injunctions in animal cruelty cases (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 19A-1) was not unconstitutional under Article IV, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution (which provides that there shall be one form of action for the redress of private wrongs, called a civil action). While defendants contend that this provision limits the legislature\u2019s ability to create actions by statute, it merely abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity.\nAppeal by defend.ants-appellants from injunction and order entered 12 April 2005 by Judge Albert A. Corbett, Jr. in Lee County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2006.\nKilpatrick Stockton LLP, by Adam H. Chames and James J. Hefferan, Jr., for the plaintiff-appellee.\nStaton, Doster, Post & Silverman, by Norman C. Post, Jr., for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0594-01", "first_page_order": 626, "last_page_order": 629 }