Legal Opinion

Van Houten v. Pritchard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 7, 1994No. 93-473PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The defendant, Peter Van Houten, had owned a cat for three years before it bit the plaintiff, Rick Pritchard. During that period it had never shown a disposition toward biting or being abnormally dangerous, and the defendant allowed it to run at large. On March 21, 1992, the cat entered plaintiff’s garage and urinated, and, as plaintiff tried to take it outside, it bit plaintiff on his right index finger. As a direct result of the bite, plaintiff has undergone four surgeries, is fitted with a plastic finger joint, and has expended more than $39,000 for medical…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Stacks v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  2. Rogers v. StillmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
  3. Bolstad v. PergesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
  4. Holt v. LeslieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
  5. Finley v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Jackson v. MateusUtah Supreme Court · 2003
  2. McKinney v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  3. Bryant v. PutnamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  4. K.S. v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  5. Seeco, Inc. v. HalesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998

12 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