AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The City of Albuquerque implemented a Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) program to manage its feral cat population, involving trapping, neutering, and returning feral cats to their original locations. Marcy Britton, a resident, challenged this practice, seeking a writ of mandandus to compel the city officials to cease the TNR program, arguing it was illegal under local ordinances (paras 1, 3-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the TNR program is illegal as it involves releasing animals in conditions that could be considered as cruelty under the HEART Ordinance, which prohibits releasing animals where they have little chance of finding food, potable water, and shelter (para 9).
• Respondents-Appellees: Defended the legality of the TNR program, suggesting it is a permissible method of managing the feral cat population under state law and local ordinances (paras 10, 14).
• Intervenor-Appellee: Supported the TNR program as a humane and ethical approach to managing feral cat populations, emphasizing the program's goals to reduce cat intake and increase live release rates (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the TNR program constitutes cruelty under the HEART Ordinance and is therefore illegal (para 9).
• Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the ordinary course of law, making the request for a writ of mandamus inappropriate (para 14).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus was affirmed (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion and Judges Michael D. Bustamante and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the petitioner failed to challenge the district court's rationale that an adequate remedy existed in the ordinary course of law, which is a prerequisite for mandamus relief. The court reviewed the district court's interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions de novo but deferred to the district court's discretion in denying the writ for prudential reasons. The court concluded that even assuming the TNR program violated the law, the petitioner's failure to demonstrate the absence of an adequate legal remedy precluded mandamus relief (paras 11-18).