owner of numerous pit bulls whose charges of animal fighting were dropped, had "protected property interest" in her dogs for purposes of her claim based on a violation of her procedural due process rights against animal cruelty prevention society for euthanizing her dogs
How later courts described this case
- owner of numerous pit bulls whose charges of animal fighting were dropped, had "protected property interest" in her dogs for purposes of her claim based on a violation of her procedural due process rights against animal cruelty prevention society for euthanizing her dogs
- explaining intentional tort of conversion
- dog owner had protected property interest in her dogs, based on violation of procedural due process rights against state run shelter for killing dogs, as Pennsylvania law considered dogs to be personal property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
McEWEN, P.J.E.:
¶ 1 The author of the Opinion in the case has so perceptively analyzed and sagaciously addressed the substantive issues of these appeals that I join in the decision of the majority with but the single exception that I agree with the ruling of the eminent Judge Edward E. Russell that denied counsel fees to plaintiff Snead.