Uccello v. Laudenslayer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that landlord has no duty of care to third persons harmed by tenant's dog on premises unless landlord has \actual knowledge\ of dog's dangerous propensities
• holding that because landowner knew of vicious propensities of tenant’s dog and could have abated danger by terminating tenancy upon two weeks’ notice, minor child bitten by dog had cognizable claim
• holding that because landowner knew of vicious propensities of tenant’s dog and could have abated danger by terminating tenancy upon two weeks’ notice, minor child bitten by dog had cognizable claim
• holding that because landowner knew of vicious propensities of tenant’s dog and could have abated danger by terminating tenancy upon two weeks’ notice, minor child bitten by dog had cognizable claim
• holding the landowner had control via the power \to order his tenant to cease harboring the dog under pain of having the tenancy terminated\
• holding the landowner had control via the power “to order his tenant to cease harboring the dog under pain of having the tenancy terminated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).