Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

United States v. Hatahley by aiowmnyv


									United States v. Hatahley, 257 F.2d 920, 1958 Issue Reasoning
DC improperly determined animals were irreplaceable. o Unique nature and training increases the market value but does not make them irreplaceable. Пs entitled to market value or replacement cost as of the time fothe taking + the use value of the animals between the taking and the time they, acting prudently, could have replaced the animals. Пs did not prove replacement costs (relying on “unique” theory) o They could be replaced by animals similarly developed and trained or which may be trained. The result, insofar as it related to use damage, was arbitrary, pure speculation, and clearly erroneous. No showing of how much of the damage was proximately caused by the gov. Pain & Suffering: Quite clear the sum given is conjectural and picked out of thin air. o The sum was divided equally among all. o Any award must result from the taking. Feelings of charity or ideological sympathy for the Indians must be put to one side.


The principle of damages is to restore the injured party, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been in had it not been for the wrong of the other party. In arriving at a fair market value of destroyed animals, the court should considered evidence of the availability of like animals, together with all other elements which go to make up market value. If the unlawful taking of the animals was the proximate cause of the herd reductions, the measure of damages would be the loss of profits occasioned thereby. Loss of use damages limited to the time in which a prudent person would replace the destroyed horses and burros. Pain & suffering is a personal and individual matter, not a common injury, and must be so treated. o Can be awarded without physical injury, only in extreme circumstances.

The Navajo’s trespassed on public land where their livestock grazed. Without notice and as required by law, the gov tortitiously rounded up the П’s horses and sent them to a glue factory! The Navajos were awarded about $186K: o $395 per horse or burro o (П: unique; could not be replaced) o $3,500 for mental pain & suffering to each o while no one was injured, Пs were frightened, some mourned the loss, were sick in the heart, and their dignity suffered. o ½ of the value of the diminution of the individual herds of sheep, goats and cattle. o (П: because of the loss, we were not able to look after as much herd and consequently suffered loss) o The court set the amount of damages for each animal, without considering condition, age, or sex, and multiplied that number by the number of animals lost to each П.

Held Proc П argues Δ argues

Remanded for damages recalculation… Suggest remand be handled by another J. The animals are irreplaceable: Court Rejected availability of like animals in the immediate vicinity. o The animals are unique because of the peculiar nature and training and could not be replaced. o Because of the loss, we were not able to look after as much livestock and consequently the herd was reduced. o Loss of use damage: loss made it difficult to obtain and transport water, wood, food, etc. Curtailed travel for medical care and attend tribal mtgs. Remand to another J: Can not obtain a fair and impartial trial because of the judge’s personal feelings on the matter.

To top