|
Mitchell v. Heinrichs |
Defendant shot plaintiff's dogs after perceiving they were a threat to her livestock and her when they trespassed upon her property. In denying defendant's claim for punitive damages, the court observed that in this case, defendant's conduct, while drastic, did not rise to the level of outrageousness. With regard to the trial court's award of only the market value of the dog to plaintiff , the court noted that it agreed with those courts that recognize that the actual value of the pet to the owner, rather than the fair market value, is sometimes the proper measure of the pet's value. However, the court declined to award Mitchell damages for her dog's sentimental value as a component of actual value to her as the dog's owner.
|
|
Mitchell v. Snider |
This is a case of an unmarried, co-habitating couple that jointly bought a dog and now dispute who should have the dog after the relationship has terminated. Mitchell brought this replevin action against his girlfriend, Snider, to recover possession of Django, their black lab. This court recognized the traditional way to treat such a case is to consider which party has superior possessory right to the dog. However, modern courts have started to recognize a special category of property in pets and have used a 'best for all concerned' analysis to decide who gets the animal. In this case, the court grants judgment for Snider in part because she had been solely responsible for the dog's care for the previous 20 months. No money was awarded to Mitchell because the expenses he paid were an expression of the parties' mutual love and desire to care for the dog. |
|
Mitchell v. State |
The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction.
|
|
Mitchell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. |
In
Mitchell v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
, 188 F.Supp. 869 (S.D. Cal. 1960), an expert was allowed to testify about a dog’s income-potential based on evidence that the dog could perform special tricks and made numerous appearances at charitable events. A jury verdict amounting to $5,000 was upheld where the court determined that the amount was not excessive and evidence of the dog’s income potential was not improper.
|
|
MN - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animals/Guide Dog Laws |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. |
|
MN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things. |
|
MN - Dangerous - Minnesota Dangerous Dog Definitions, Dog Bites, & Rabies Treatments |
This Minnesota set of laws outlines the procedure for a town establishing a rabies proclamation and prevents the running at large of unmuzzled dogs in such localities. It also provides that an owner or custodian of a dog which does not have an appropriate antirabies vaccination and which bites or otherwise exposes a person to rabies virus may be penalized under section 346.53.& The statute also defines "dangerous dog" and "potentially dangerous dog." |
|
MN - Declaw - 504B.114. Pet declawing and devocalization prohibited |
This Minnesota law, effective January 1, 2024, prohibits a landlord who allows an animal from: (1) advertising the availability of a real property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real property because an applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized; (2) refusing to allow the occupancy of a real property, refusing to negotiate the occupancy of a real property, or otherwise making unavailable or deny to another person the occupancy of a real property because of that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize an animal; or (3) requiring a tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or devocalize an animal allowed on the premises. |
|
MN - Disaster Planning - Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) |
The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan contains references to both household pets and service animals. The plan defines "household pet" as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), or turtle that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes and can travel in commercial carriers and be housed in temporary facilities. Household pets do not include reptiles (except turtles), amphibians, fish, insects/arachnids, farm animals (including horses), and animals kept for racing purposes." |
|
MN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These statutes comprise Minnesota's relevant dog laws. Among the provisions include several laws related to natural resources protection and hunting with dogs, the sale of dogs, and laws related to damage done by dogs. |
