This is Avery. Avery may have made history...AFTER his death.

We who have pets know that their value is far beyond the amount of money spent for them. Even if you added up every penny I have spent on food, veterinary care, training, toys, boarding, and dog treats (no small amount) I wouldn't take four times that amount of money for one of my dogs. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends and aquaintances who doesn't feel that way. I'd spend any amount of money to save one of my dogs if they were sick because they are family to me. What price can you put on love?

The courts have always put a market price on animals. If it is a cruelty case the animals are supposed to be maintained completely as they were when seized except for food and shelter. They can receive the basic immunizations that their owner failed to give but no spaying, neutering or grooming, I was told, until after a hearing and then they could be groomed.

If someone walks into your yard and shoots your dog then the courts say your "property" was destroyed. Your feelings didn't matter and still don't in most courts. But, this may be changing due to a case in Texas where an organization mistakenly euthanized a family pet that should have been held for the family to reclaim.

Jeremy and Katherine Medlen of Forth Worth Texas went to the place to reclaim their dog, Avery, who got out of his yard and was picked up. On their first visit they were told the fees had to be calculated and they should come back but the dog's kennel would be tagged to ensure they would get him back. Their second visit they were told Avery had to be microchipped and that the veterinarian who had to do the chipping wouldn't be in for another couple of days. When the day finally came for Avery to go home they were told he had been mistakenly euthanized.

"Eventually, the Medlens sued the worker believed to have put Avery on the euthanasia list, saying her negligence led to his death. They asked for "sentimental or intrinsic value" because Avery had little market value "and was irreplaceable," according to court records. Their lawsuit did not specify the amount of damages. The county judge ruled that they could not sue for sentimental value since the law doesn't allow that. The family pushed it and the case was sent to appeal. The state appeals court in Forth Worth "ruled for the first time that a pet's value is greater than its price tag."

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners," says the ruling from the Texas 2nd Court of Appeals. "We interpret timeworn Supreme Court law ... to acknowledge that the special value of 'man's best friend' should be protected."

"It is the first time in Texas history that an appeals court has allowed a dog owner to recover sentimental-value damages for the death of a dog," said Randy Turner, the Fort Worth attorney who represents the Medlens. "This is a huge deal for pet owners. Up until the Medlen case, if a person came to see me wanting to sue someone for killing their dog, I had to tell them it was not worth it.

"No matter how attached they were to their pet, and no matter how devastated they were by its death, ... they [had been] only entitled to the 'market value' of the animal," said Turner, who is handling the case for no payment. "Now a jury can at least put a sentimental value on an animal that is otherwise worthless in terms of what it could have sold for on the open market."

Perhaps Avery the dog will be known forever as the dog who changed everything. A fitting tribute but no salve for the loss of a family member.