{
  "id": 3795555,
  "name": "JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS, INC. v. LENOIR COUNTY SPCA, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir County SPCA, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2005-10-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 135A05",
  "first_page": "48",
  "last_page": "49",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "360 N.C. 48"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "607 S.E.2d 317",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8469320
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "607 S.E.2d 317",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322-23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8469320
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "306-07"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2861184184869465
    },
    "sha256": "89b66e0dd42a8be63feb1753145fa74f2cfa672123c44387120125e49a13356d",
    "simhash": "1:215b745b06ef4358",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:28:24.883894+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS, INC. v. LENOIR COUNTY SPCA, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. However, inasmuch as the issue of the \u201cpoke\u201d procedure was not the basis of plaintiff\u2019s claim nor properly before the Court of Appeals, we specifically disavow the language in Section V. Civil Remedy for Protection of Animals in that court\u2019s opinion:\nTestimony presented at trial tended to show that defendant employs a \u201cpoke\u201d procedure to determine whether to impound or immediately euthanize an animal. On remand, the trial court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to show defendant\u2019s use of the \u201cpoke\u201d test to determine whether a cat is feral or tame and defendant\u2019s subsequent immediate [euthanasia] constitutes \u201cunjustifiable pain, suffering, or death.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 19A-1(2).\nJustice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir Cty. SPCA, Inc., 168 N.C. App. 298, 306-07, 607 S.E.2d 317, 322-23 (2005). Thus, on remand, the trial court is not to consider the \u201cpoke\u201d procedure.\nMODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ward and Smith, P.A., by A. Charles Ellis and Cheryl A. Marteney, for plaintiff-appellant/appellee.",
      "White & Allen, P.A., by David J. Fillippeli, Jr. and Gregory E. Floyd, for defendant-appellee/appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS, INC. v. LENOIR COUNTY SPCA, INC.\nNo. 135A05\n(Filed 7 October 2005)\nAnimals\u2014 euthanization of feral cats \u2014 \u201cpoke\u201d procedure\u2014 language disavowed\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is affirmed. However, language in the Court of Appeals opinion regarding the \u201cpoke\u201d procedure employed by defendant to determine whether a cat is feral or tame is disavowed because the issue of this procedure was neither the basis of plaintiff\u2019s claim nor properly before the Court of Appeals.\nAppeal by plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2), and cross-appeal by defendant, from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C. App. 298, 607 S.E.2d 317 (2005), vacating in part and reversing and remanding in part an order entered on 18 August 2003 by Judge Elizabeth A. Heath in District Court, Lenoir County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 September 2005.\nWard and Smith, P.A., by A. Charles Ellis and Cheryl A. Marteney, for plaintiff-appellant/appellee.\nWhite & Allen, P.A., by David J. Fillippeli, Jr. and Gregory E. Floyd, for defendant-appellee/appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0048-01",
  "first_page_order": 120,
  "last_page_order": 121
}