The Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company case in 1896 revolved around the issue of whether a state law could allow for an animal to be seized without prior notice or hearing, as part of a debt collection process. The plaintiff, Sentell, had his mule taken by the defendant railroad company under Louisiana's "running at large" statute after it allegedly caused damage to their property. He argued that this seizure violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because he was not given due process before his property was taken away from him. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that animals running at large are considered nuisances under common law and can therefore be summarily abated or removed without judicial proceedings beforehand. Furthermore, they stated that since domestic animals have qualified property rights attached to them (as opposed to absolute), states have more leeway in regulating how these types of properties can be controlled or disposed.

The dissenting opinion in the Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power, infringing upon states' rights to regulate their own internal affairs. The dissenters believed that Louisiana law should have been upheld, which allowed for a dog owner to recover damages when his pet was killed by another party without justification or provocation. They contended that dogs were personal property under state law and thus deserved protection from harm inflicted by others. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that dogs had no intrinsic value beyond their utility to humans; instead, they maintained that pets often held significant emotional value for their owners. Therefore, according to this view, it was unjust for the court not only to deny compensation but also effectively condone wanton cruelty towards animals.