{ "id": 8525741, "name": "TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH v. CECELIA YOUNG", "name_abbreviation": "Town of Atlantic Beach v. Young", "decision_date": "1982-08-03", "docket_number": "No. 813SC828", "first_page": "597", "last_page": "601", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "58 N.C. App. 597" } ], "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": "271 S.E. 2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "762", "parenthetical": "\"The dog is of a noble, free nature, yet is domesticated and dedicated to the well-being of people of all races.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 N.C. App. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522271 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477", "parenthetical": "\"The dog is of a noble, free nature, yet is domesticated and dedicated to the well-being of people of all races.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/49/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114", "parenthetical": "\"A mule is a melancholy creature . . . [which] has neither 'pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity.' \"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N.C. 804", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627041 ], "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "806", "parenthetical": "\"A mule is a melancholy creature . . . [which] has neither 'pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity.' \"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0804-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S.Ct. 55", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 L.Ed. 2d 11", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "449 U.S. 807", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11718918, 11719144, 11718961, 11719057, 11719096, 11719002, 11718878 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/449/0807-02", "/us/449/0807-07", "/us/449/0807-03", "/us/449/0807-05", "/us/449/0807-06", "/us/449/0807-04", "/us/449/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575088 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574073 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 635", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553228 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556662 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 N.C. App. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550906 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/48/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 S.E. 2d 392", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "407" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569619 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575331 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568609, 8568483, 8568453, 8568520, 8568561 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0630-05", "/nc/302/0630-02", "/nc/302/0630-01", "/nc/302/0630-03", "/nc/302/0630-04" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 N.C. App. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2675038 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/50/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574709 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559260 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0494-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 527, "char_count": 8293, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5177290357863937e-07, "percentile": 0.8111859031163593 }, "sha256": "afa1143b9c9fe3b614218db12c3c063b458012794ea534f1047ad445d99a6d21", "simhash": "1:377064e21d249c02", "word_count": 1359 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:52.636886+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Martin (Robert M.) and Martin (Harry C.) concur." ], "parties": [ "TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH v. CECELIA YOUNG" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nI.\nPlaintiff municipality enacted an ordinance which prohibited the keeping \u201cwithin the town limits [of] livestock, animals, or poultry other than house pets.\u201d The ordinance specified that its prohibition included, inter alia, horses and goats.\nDefendant, in response to plaintiffs request for admission, acknowledged that she kept two goats and one pony on her premises. While she denied that her premises were within plaintiffs town limits, the only record evidence was to the contrary.\nBy this action plaintiff sought, pursuant to the above ordinance, a permanent injunction \u201cdirecting defendant to remove all animals other than specified domestic house pets from her premises.\u201d The trial court denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant\u2019s.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nII.\nOne ground for defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment was:\nThe animals the defendant keeps on her premises, according to the affidavit attached hereto, are house pets which are permitted under the Town Ordinance. The plaintiff does not allege in its Complaint that the animals are not house pets, and no discovery has indicated they are anything other than house pets.\nWhether defendant\u2019s animals are \u201chouse pets\u201d requires two determinations: (1) the legal question of the meaning of \u201chouse pets\u201d as used in the ordinance, and (2) the specific facts which invoke application of this legal definition.\nAbsent evidence of a contrary intent, the words of an ordinance are presumed to have their common and ordinary meaning. See Transportation Service v. County of Robeson, 283 N.C. 494, 500, 196 S.E. 2d 770, 774 (1973); In Re Trucking Co., 281 N.C. 242, 252, 188 S.E. 2d 452, 458 (1972). The common meaning of \u201cpet\u201d is \u201ca domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility.\u201d Webster\u2019s International Dictionary 1689 (3d ed. 1968). We thus construe the exception in the ordinance for \u201chouse pets\u201d to encompass all domesticated animals kept for pleasure in or around a house.\nThe facts material to the determination whether defendant\u2019s animals are \u201chouse pets\u201d are the following: (1) the kind of animals they are, (2) the reason for which they were kept, and (3) the place where they were kept. Defendant has shown by affidavit that (1) her animals are two goats and a pony, which we find are \u201cdomesticated\u201d animals, ie., ones that \u201clive and breed in a tame condition,\u201d Webster\u2019s, supra, at 671; (2) they are kept as \u201cpets,\u201d and thus are for pleasure rather than utility; and (3) they are kept within the walls of her house.\nG.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e), in part provides:\nWhen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule [ie., by pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, or affidavits], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.\nDefendant demonstrated the facts necessary to make the legal determination that her animals were \u201chouse pets\u201d within the meaning of the ordinance. Plaintiff then had the burden to respond, by affidavit or other evidentiary matter, to show contrary material facts, and that there thus was a genuine issue for trial. \u201cIf the moving party files papers, including testimonial affidavits which show there is not a triable issue, the opposing party pursuant to Rule 56(e) and (f), must file papers which show there is a triable issue or the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment.\u201d Nye v. Lipton, 50 N.C. App. 224, 227, 273 S.E. 2d 313, 315, disc. rev. denied, 302 N.C. 630, 280 S.E. 2d 441 (1981). See also Real Estate Trust v. Debnam, 299 N.C. 510, 513, 263 S.E. 2d 595, 598 (1980); Kidd v. Early, 289 N.C. 343, 365, 222 S.E. 2d 392, 407 (1976); City of Elizabeth City v. Enterprises, Inc., 48 N.C. App. 408, 412, 269 S.E. 2d 260, 262 (1980); Arnold v. Howard, 29 N.C. App. 570, 572, 225 S.E. 2d 149, 151 (1976); Pridgen v. Hughes, 9 N.C. App. 635, 640, 177 S.E. 2d 425, 428 (1970).\nPlaintiff failed to offer any evidentiary matter in opposition to defendant\u2019s affidavit. There thus was no genuine issue for trial. A motion for summary judgment must be granted where \u201cthere is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). By applying the legal definition of \u201chouse pets\u201d as used in the ordinance to the undisputed facts, we hold that defendant\u2019s animals fell within the ordinance\u2019s exception for \u201chouse pets,\u201d and that defendant thus was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nIII.\nDefendant\u2019s motion also sought summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs ordinance is unconstitutional on several grounds. \u201cIt is an established principle of appellate review that [the] court will refrain from deciding constitutional questions when there is an alternative ground available upon which the case may properly be decided.\u201d Brooks, Comr. of Labor v. Enterprises, Inc., 298 N.C. 759, 761, 260 S.E. 2d 419, 421 (1979). See also State v. School, 299 N.C. 351, 359, 261 S.E. 2d 908, 914, appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807, 66 L.Ed. 2d 11, 101 S.Ct. 55 (1980). Having concluded that defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment was properly granted because plaintiff offered no responsive forecast of evidence which established existence of a genuine issue of fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we refrain from passing on the constitutional questions presented.\nIV.\nIn part, this is a case about goats. When confronted with cases concerning various species of the animal kingdom, appellate courts of this jurisdiction historically have yielded to a seemingly inexorable compulsion to write learned (?) treatises thereon. See, e.g., Justice Brogden\u2019s opinion on mules, Rector v. Coal Co., 192 N.C. 804, 806, 136 S.E. 113, 114 (1926) (\u201cA mule is a melancholy creature . . . [which] has neither \u2018pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity.\u2019 \u201d); and Judge (Harry C.) Martin\u2019s opinion on dogs, State v. Wallace, 49 N.C. App. 475, 477, 271 S.E. 2d 760, 762 (1980) (\u201cThe dog is of a noble, free nature, yet is domesticated and dedicated to the well-being of people of all races.\u201d).\nIn the exercise of judicial restraint, attained with difficulty, we resist the temptation presented here to follow, with regard to goats, the example of those opinions. Reference is made, however, to the following: J. Scott, The Book of the Goat (1979); and V. Sussman, Never Kiss a Goat on the Lips (1981).\nV.\nPlaintiff commenced this action for the purpose of getting defendant\u2019s goats. Defendant\u2019s obtaining a summary judgment against plaintiff may, instead, get plaintiffs goat.\nWe hold the grant of defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment proper. Denial of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment therefore was equally proper. Plaintiffs assignment of error to the grant of defendant\u2019s motion and the denial of its motion is overruled, and the judgment is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Martin (Robert M.) and Martin (Harry C.) concur.\n. As of the filing date of this opinion, Justice Harry C. Martin.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hamilton, Bailey & Coyne, by Glenn B. Bailey, for plaintiff appellant.", "Cooper and Whitford, P.A., by Neil B. Whitford, for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TOWN OF ATLANTIC BEACH v. CECELIA YOUNG\nNo. 813SC828\n(Filed 3 August 1982)\nAnimals \u00a7 8; Municipal Corporations \u00a7 8.2\u2014 ordinance prohibiting keeping of horses and goats other than house pets \u2014 establishing as house pets \u2014 summary judgment proper\nIn an action where plaintiff town sought a permanent injunction \u201cdirecting defendant to remove all animals other than specified domestic house pets from her premises\u201d pursuant to an ordinance, where defendant demonstrated the facts necessary to make the legal determination that her animals (two goats and a pony) were \u201chouse pets\u201d within the meaning of the ordinance and plaintiff failed to show contrary material facts, the trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Rouse, Judge. Judgment entered 1 J\u00fane 1981 in Superior Court, Carteret County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 April 1982.\nHamilton, Bailey & Coyne, by Glenn B. Bailey, for plaintiff appellant.\nCooper and Whitford, P.A., by Neil B. Whitford, for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0597-01", "first_page_order": 629, "last_page_order": 633 }