Legal Opinion
Van Alstyne v. Rochester Telephone Corp.
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided February 24, 1937PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilder, J.
The plaintiff sues for damages suffered through the death of his two dogs, alleged to be due to the acts of the defendant.
The plaintiff was the owner of a valuable hunting dog, Nancy. He kept it in an inclosure at the rear of the lot upon which he lived. Within the inclosure or run there was a kennel. At the rear of the lot, the rear of the run, was a concrete pole upon which the defendant, under permit or easement, maintained a lead cable.
On May 4, 1936, the defendant’s servants opened the cable by removing the lead for a space. Other work was done on later days. Nancy had been kept in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Radcliff's Executors v. . Mayor, C. of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Hay v. . the Cohoes CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- St. Peter v. . DenisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Atwater v. Trustees of Village of CanandaiguaNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- MARTIN ET UX v. Reynolds Metals Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Costlow v. CusimanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
- Leonard v. Nat Harrison Associates, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
- Fairview Farms, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1959
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.