Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Robledo

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 23, 2012No. B231534; No. B231545PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DOI TODD, J.

The consolidated appeals in these two cases present the same legal issue: What is the measure of damages for the wrongful injury of a pet? We hold that a pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury. Accordingly, we reverse the stipulated judgments and remand the cases for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in both cases are represented by the same attorneys, but the parties and facts are otherwise unrelated.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Showalter v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Tudor Ranches, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. La Porte v. Associated Independents, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1964
  5. Toscano v. Greene MusicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy MedlenTexas Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Ashburn v. AIG Financial Advisors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Almodovar v. Downey High School CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Berry v. FrazierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
  5. Berry v. FrazierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API