Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 3-5-1 (2026)

“Livestock” or “Animal” Defined.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The term “livestock” or “animal,” where it occurs in this chapter, shall be held to be limited to and to refer to equine or equidae, cows, calves, yearlings, bulls, oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, kids, hogs, shoats, and pigs.

(Acts 1939, No. 368, p. 487; Code 1940, T. 3, §77; Act 2004-627, p. 1421, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: Coxwell v. Whatley, 367 So. 2d 962 (Ala. 1979).
Coxwell v. Whatley, 367 So. 2d 962 (Ala. 1979). “] Plaintiffs appear on this appeal to be trying to raise the applicability of § 3-5 — 2, which provides as follows: “(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any livestock or animal, as defined in Section 3-5-1, to knowingly, voluntarily, negligently or wilfully permit any such…”
Carpenter v. McDonald, 495 So. 2d 640 (Ala. 1986). “Code 1975, § 3-5-2(a), provides: “It shall be unlawful for the owner of any livestock or animal, as defined in section 3-5-1, to knowingly, voluntarily, negligently or wilfully permit any such livestock or animal to go at large in the state of Alabama either upon the premises of…”
Brewer v. Atkinson, 262 So. 3d 663 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1 In the complaint, the Brewers claimed that Joshua had violated a duty under Ala. Code 1975, § 3-5-1 et seq., to refrain from knowingly or willfully putting or placing Cow 64 on a public roadway and that they were entitled to damages for such breach.”
Monfee v. Seymore, 392 So. 2d 1198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). “1975, provides: It shall be unlawful for the owner of any livestock or animal, as defined in section 3-5-1, to knowingly, voluntarily, negligently or wilfully permit any such livestock or animal to go at large in the state of Alabama either upon the premises of another or upon…”
Brewer v. Atkinson, 262 So. 3d 663 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1 In the complaint, the Brewers claimed that Joshua had violated a duty under Ala. Code 1975, § 3-5-1 et seq., to refrain from knowingly or willfully putting or placing Cow 64 on a public roadway and that they were entitled to damages for such breach.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.