Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Hoyle finds the trial court properly ruled in favor of the dog attack victim. Though the dogs were kept on adjoining properties, and there were questions as to who was in actual possession of them as well as who controlled the property, the jury found certain property owners to share in certain percentages of negligence. One of the owners, however, lacked superior ability to control the property, and the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding of negligence as to this owner. Reversed in part.
To read this case, start your 14-day free trial.
Request a free trial account to get access to more case data, documents, and features.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.