Pleadings, Briefs, and Jury Charges


Full Site Search


The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic

World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA

Number/Pet Restrictions: Related Pleadings

Pleading Name Citation Summary
In the Matter of a Protective Order for Jean Marie Primrose (2005)     This series of actions stemmed from the seizure of 11 cats from Jean Marie Primrose from her Linn County, Oregon home. Ms. Primrose was charged with criminal animal neglect in the second degree, but the trial court dismissed those charges because she was found incompetent due to a cognitive impairment. Because the case was dismissed, the cats were not forfeited by law and Cat Champion had incurred a $32,510 debt in caring for the animals. Cat Champions filed a petition for a limited protective order as a fiduciary for the care and placement of the cats. The probate court ruled against Cat Champions but on appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's order and held that the probate court did indeed have authority to enter a limited protective order.  
Sheldon Park Tenants v. ACHA (1989)     Public Housing Authority decided to enforce "no pets" rule after years of unenforcement. This is a brief in arbitration.  
Powers v. Tincher (2001)     While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance.  
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside (1990)   8 Cal.4th 361, 878 P.2d 1275, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63   Neighborhood Association had covenants against pets. Woman had two cats (against rules) and was charge large fines for having them. She challenged the validity of the rule, as well as the method of enforcement.  

Back to top