Opinion

Scharfeld v. Richardson

  • 133 F.2d 340
  • 76 U.S. App. D.C. 378
  • 145 A.L.R. 980
  • 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2503
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Nov 23, 1942
Status
Published
Author
Rutledge
On the bench
Stephens, Vinson, Rutledge
Cited by
21 cases

“It is an established principle of the common law that a dog is personal property and that its owner may recover for a willful or negligent injury thereto.... ”

How later courts described this case

  • “It is an established principle of the common law that a dog is personal property and that its owner may recover for a willful or negligent injury thereto.... ”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

RUTLEDGE, Associate Justice

(concurring).

I concur in Judge VINSON’S opinion, for the reasons stated therein and upon the following additional authority:

“This saga of Popo, malevolent pooch,

And Erck’s Pomeranian pet;

Your etymological-legal approach

To canons of dog etiquette,

Persuade me that canines are property still

Whether licensed, unlicensed or tagged;

Not ferae naturae, or fair game to kill

So long as there’s tail to be wagged.” 28

Miller, Justin, Pooch Poems 1.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.