Legal Opinion

Raymond v. Bujold

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 3, 1938PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The plaintiff does not contend that he has a right of action against the defendant at common law. He claims only under a statute (P. L., c. 150, ss. 23, 24), which provides, section 23, that “Any person to whom or to whose property damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him shall be entitled to recover such damage from the person who owns or keeps the dog, or has it in possession, unless the damage was occasioned to him while he was engaged in the commission of a trespass or other tort.” Section 24 provides that double the amount of the damage sustained may be recovered in an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Quimby v. WoodburySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
  2. Gagnon v. FrankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  3. Smith v. HallahanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Swain v. TillettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. Tanga v. TangaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  3. Neztsosie v. MeyerUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Lee v. RiceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. American Family Mutual Insurance v. WilliamsDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2015

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API