Roos v. Loeser
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Daniel C. Deasy, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the killing of her dog, of the variety known as Pomeranian, by an Airedale belonging to the defendant. A jury trial was had, and judgment went for the plaintiff in the sum of five hundred dollars. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and he now appeals from the judgment.
The complaint alleges that on the sixteenth day of May, 1917, the plaintiff was the owner of a Pomeranian dog of the value of one thousand dollars; that the defendant was the owner of an Airedale, of vicious disposition…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heiligmann v. RoseTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Shimoda v. BundyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Parker v. MiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Ten Hopen v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Sabin v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- James Tracey Miller v. Clark County Edward J. Bylsma, in His Capacity as a Police Officer for Clark County and as an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Armenta v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Scharfeld v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal RegulationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Romero v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.