Legal Opinion

Hood v. Waldrum

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided March 29, 1968PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

. TODD, J.

In these consolidated cases Malcolm Hood, Jr., and Christine Hood, defendants, have appealed in error from separate verdicts and judgments in favor of plaintiffs, R. C. Waldrum and Mrs. Lula Waldrum, for damages resulting from an alleged attack upon Mrs. Waldrum by defendants’ dog.

The salient facts are uncontroverted. The defendants are husband and wife. They reside in a semi-rural situation in which three homes are grouped in close proximity with no other houses in “hollering distance”. For about nine years, the defendants have owned a large dog, which is kept as a pet and, to some…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. McFarlane v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Hoffman v. City of BristolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  3. Kendall Oil Company v. PayneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1955
  4. Mitchell v. KetnerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
  5. Management Services, Inc. v. HellmanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1955

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1973
  2. McElroy v. Boise Cascade Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1982
  3. Cole v. WoodsTennessee Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Shouse v. OtisTennessee Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Vakil v. IdnaniCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1987

11 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