Jagger v. Stark

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jagger v. Stark

276 S.W.3d 395, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 84, 2009 WL 242337

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 2009

DocketED 91184

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 S.W.3d 395 (Jagger v. Stark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jagger v. Stark, 276 S.W.3d 395, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 84, 2009 WL 242337 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Johm Jagger appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County, the Honorable Robert M. Clayton, II, presiding, denying his petition for damages. Jagger was hunting coyotes with his two dogs, when the dogs ran into Stark’s garage. Stark came into the garage to find the dogs jumping on his truck and barking at his cat, which was in the rafters. After unsuccessfully attempting to drive out the dogs by kicking them and hitting one with a board; Stark went inside, retrieved a rifle, came back to the garage, and shot each dog, killing one. Jagger sued Stark for damages associated with the loss of his dogs, and Stark counter-claimed for damages to repair the scratches on his truck. After a bench trial, the court denied both claims. Jagger argues on appeal that Stark was not authorized under § 273.080 RSMo. (2000) or any other Missouri law to shoot Jagger’s dogs, thus he should be entitled to damages for their loss.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Johm Jagger appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County, the Honorable Robert M. Clayton, II, presiding, denying his petition for damages. Jagger was hunting coyotes with his two dogs, when the dogs ran into Stark’s garage. Stark came into the garage to find the dogs jumping on his truck and barking at his cat, which was in the rafters. After unsuccessfully attempting to drive out the dogs by kicking them and hitting one with a board; Stark went inside, retrieved a rifle, came back to the garage, and shot each dog, killing one. Jagger sued Stark for damages associated with the loss of his dogs, and Stark counter-claimed for damages to repair the scratches on his truck. After a bench trial, the court denied both claims. Jagger argues on appeal that Stark was not authorized under § 273.080 RSMo. (2000) or any other Missouri law to shoot Jagger’s dogs, thus he should be entitled to damages for their loss.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 395, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 84, 2009 WL 242337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jagger-v-stark-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack