This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P brought her fourteen-month-old miniature schnauzer, Licorice, to a D store in Austin to be groomed. As P was returning to the store to pick up Licorice, she saw the dog running away from the store through the surrounding high-traffic area. P learned that Licorice had slipped her leash and run away from a D employee who had taken the dog outside for a bathroom break. P and D employees searched for Licorice for four days until, tragically, the dog was found dead, having been run over by traffic. P sued D for breach of contract, gross negligence, and conversion. D did not answer, and P took a default judgment and then offered evidence to support a range of unliquidated damages. P testified that Licorice's replacement value was $500.00, that she had incurred $892.00 to send Licorice to training school and $52.40 for microchip implantation, and that she had lost $857.68 in wages while missing work to search for Licorice. P also testified that she had experienced a total of $645,000 in mental anguish while searching for Licorice and after learning of the dog's death, as well as $160 in counseling costs. P also asked the district court to award $280,000 in damages for 'loss of companionship of Licorice.' She additionally requested $1 million in exemplary damages, plus attorney fees. The district court awarded Schuster the following damages: $500.00 as the replacement value of Licorice; $892.00 as reimbursement costs of putting Licorice through training school; $52.40 as reimbursement for microchip implantation; $857.68 as lost wages for Schuster when she was searching for Licorice; $160.00 as counseling costs; $10,000 as compensation to Schuster for mental anguish and emotional distress; $10,000 as compensation for ''intrinsic value'' loss of companionship'; $10,000 as exemplary damages; and $6,750 as attorney's fees (with more allowed for any appeals taken). The court expressed skepticism that any damages beyond replacement value for Licorice were properly recoverable. D filed a notice of appeal on June 11, 2003, over 40 days after the judgment was signed. D contends that Texas law does not support any award for mental anguish and related counseling, loss of companionship, or lost wages for the loss of a dog; there was no evidence of conduct by Petco to support imposition of exemplary damages; the attorney's fee award, which was based upon forty-five hours of work by D's attorney at $150 per hour, was excessive; and (4) the district court erroneously awarded both breach of contract and tort damages for the same injury, the loss of Licorice.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.