http://www.dangerousdoglaw.com

Replevin Case Law

Case law varies from state to state on the Replevin issue. However, there is so little of it that relates to Dangerous Dog litigation, that it is imperative to know what's out there and helpful to your cause.  Below are cases I have found helpful in Dangerous Dog cases.

Replevin is Proper Cause of Action Against Government Taking

Sammeth v. City of Seattle, (Case No. 07-32889) - Unreported - In this §1983 case, a Writ of Replevin was filed and sucessful in getting the dog back pending appeal.  This is clear in the Amended Complaint that can be seen here.

Thomas v. City of Minneapolis, 2007 WL 1121465 (Minn. App. 2007) - This case involves a dog that got lost and was picked up by Animal Control and then given to Underdog Rescue.  It was then transferred to a third party. The owner sued Animal Control and the Rescue entity in Replevin and for monetary damages. After Thomas found out who had adopted the dog, she named them as defendant.  At summary judgement, the court granted Thomas' Replevin Motion. The rest of the opinion is really irrelevant, as it discusses improper granting of sactions. 

Rabon v. City of Seattle, 34 P.3d 821 (Wash. App. 2001) - Not a part of the legal argument, but it is clear in the court decision that Rabon filed a Writ of Replevin against Seattle Animal Control who agreed to return his dogs with conditions. Id. at 823. 

Helmy v. Swigert, 662 So.2d 395 (5th DCA 1995) - This case is slighly off topic because it involves a Writ of Mandamus to return a dog that was seized during a criminal case for evidence.  However, it is from Florida, and it does illustrate the concept of due process in a seizure. The court granted the owners' Writ of Mandamus and directed the trial court to have an evidentiary hearing on the conflicting ownership claims, since the dog had been transferred to the Humane Society.

Studer v. Seneca County Humane Society, 2000 WL 566738 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2000) - After seizing animals due to neglect, the owner filed a Writ of Replevin for return.  The court reversed dismissal of the owner's replevin claim, and noted that there was no proof that the animals that were the subject of the Writ were tho ones that were involved in the neglect proceedings. 

Dog is Proper Subject of Replevin

In addition to the cases above, the following decisions have found that a dog is the proper subject of a Replevin action.

Webb v. Papaspiridakos, 2009 NY Slip Op 51152 (S.Ct. Queens Cty 2009) - Replevin to recover dog that was transferred to third party without consent of owner.

Borrayo v. Lefever, 159 P.3d 657 (Col. App 2006) - Replevin of dog after termination of nonmarital relationship.

Angrave v. Oates, 876 A2d 1287 (CT App 2005) - Replevin of a show dog after owner transferred for care in exchange for giving the defendant puppies from the dog's first litter.

Bono v. McCutcheon, 2005 Ohio 299 (2nd Dist . OH 2005) - Replevin of Whippet Puppy on the basis it would be shown.

Morgan v. Kroupa, 702 A.2d 630 (S.Ct. Vermont 1997) - Replevin of Morgan's dog after it was lost and found by Kroupa.

Buczkowicz v. Lubin, 399 N.E. 2d 680 (Ill. App. 3rd Dict. 1980) - Replevin of dog who had been transferred for the purpose of showing.