Peterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Any sheriff, police officer, licensed veterinarian, or investigator may take custody of and care for any animal unjustifiably exposed to cold or inclement weather or not properly fed and watered.... 3. If the owner or the owner's agent is known, the individual must be immediately notified. If the owner or the owner's agent is unknown, notice must be given by publication in the manner prescribed by law. The notice must inform the owner or the owner's agent that the animal may be sold, or otherwise disposed of, pursuant to court order if the animal is not redeemed within five days from the date of the notice. 4. The sheriff, police officer, licensed veterinarian, investigator, or whoever has custody of the animal has a lien on the animal and that lien is superior to any other claim or lien, for the animal's care and keeping, the reasonable value of the food and drink furnished, and the expenses of notifying the owner or the owner's agent. If the lien is not discharged and satisfied by the owner or the owner's agent within five days after receipt of the notice, the person holding the claim may apply to the district court for an order to sell the animal and discharge the lien. 5. Upon order of the court, the animal may be sold at a public market to pay the charges for its keeping, and the title to the animal passes by the sale. .... 8. Before the animal is returned to its owner, the court shall determine whether the owner or the owner's agent can provide adequate care for the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Peterson's Dogs

2. “Notice is hereby given that all of the dogs being confined at your residence... are hereby confiscated by the Burleigh County Sheriff's Department, pursuant to the authority of Section 36-21.1-06 of the North Dakota Century Code for failure to provide necessary care for said animals. You are further advised that said dogs may be sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to court order if they have not been redeemed within 5 days, and that the animals will only be returned to you if the Burleigh County District Court determines that you can provide adequate care for said animals. You must contact the Burleigh County Sheriff's Department within 5 days from the date of this order of your intent to redeem said animals.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Peterson's Dogs

3. “The State argued the dogs were not confiscated under N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06(1), Peterson voluntarily relinquished ownership of the dogs, she did not have a cause of action under N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06, and she was not entitled to a hearing. A copy of the signed relinquishment of ownership was attached to the State's response. On March 17, 2008, the district court cancelled the hearing finding,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Peterson's Dogs