Legal Opinion
Soucek v. Banham
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 29, 1994No. C3-94-1203PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PETERSON, Judge.
The issue in this case is the measure of damages a pet owner can recover when police officers shoot and kill a pet. The trial court determined that damages for the death of a pet are limited to replacement cost. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Jon Soucek owned a dog he called Mack. One night, Mack got loose from Soucek’s back yard and was later spot*479ted near downtown Minneapolis. Minneapolis police officers were called to the scene. The officers shot and killed Mack.
Soucek brought an action against the officers and the city of Minneapolis alleging negligence per se, intentional…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Eisert v. Greenberg Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Wilson v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Corn v. SheppardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Milton BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin LOGAN, Koren Logan, Trustees for the Logan Inter Vivos Trust, Respondents-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Nichols v. Sukaro KennelsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
- Luigino's Inc. v. Pezrow CompaniesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
- Molenaar v. United Cattle Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Harabes v. Barkery, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.