Hannan v. City of Minneapolis case brief
623 N.W.2d 281
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
623 N.W.2d 281
CASE SYNOPSIS: Relator
appealed an order of respondent, the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Animal Control Division, ordering the destruction of his dog based on
its determination the dog's aggressive behavior represented a danger
to public safety.
FACTS: Respondent municipal animal control division informed relator it was declaring his dog "potentially dangerous" under Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 3 (2000) after it bit an individual walking by his home. A hearing officer upheld the declaration, but overruled the contention the dog was a dangerous animal under a city ordinance because relator agreed to keep the dog muzzled when it was alone or off relator's property. Relator failed to abide by the restrictions and the dog was involved in several more biting incidents. Respondent issued an order for destruction of the dog as a dangerous animal under Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 64.120 (2000) and relator appealed, arguing the actions of respondent in regulating and ultimately ordering the destruction of a dangerous animal were precluded by state statute. The court affirmed, holding the municipal ordinance relied upon by respondent for the destruction of dangerous animals was not in conflict with or preempted by state law, and relator's due-process rights were not violated where the record did not indicate respondent's decision was unreasonable or without evidentiary support.
CONCLUSION: Judgment affirmed, because the municipal ordinance providing for the destruction of dangerous animals was not in conflict with or preempted by state law, therefore the order was duly authorized. Further, relator's due-process rights were not violated where the record did not indicate respondent's decision was arbitrary or without evidentiary support.
FACTS: Respondent municipal animal control division informed relator it was declaring his dog "potentially dangerous" under Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 3 (2000) after it bit an individual walking by his home. A hearing officer upheld the declaration, but overruled the contention the dog was a dangerous animal under a city ordinance because relator agreed to keep the dog muzzled when it was alone or off relator's property. Relator failed to abide by the restrictions and the dog was involved in several more biting incidents. Respondent issued an order for destruction of the dog as a dangerous animal under Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 64.120 (2000) and relator appealed, arguing the actions of respondent in regulating and ultimately ordering the destruction of a dangerous animal were precluded by state statute. The court affirmed, holding the municipal ordinance relied upon by respondent for the destruction of dangerous animals was not in conflict with or preempted by state law, and relator's due-process rights were not violated where the record did not indicate respondent's decision was unreasonable or without evidentiary support.
CONCLUSION: Judgment affirmed, because the municipal ordinance providing for the destruction of dangerous animals was not in conflict with or preempted by state law, therefore the order was duly authorized. Further, relator's due-process rights were not violated where the record did not indicate respondent's decision was arbitrary or without evidentiary support.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment