Legal Opinion
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 10, 2005No. A03-1707PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HANSON, Justice.
Appellant Lena Hyatt sued the City of Anoka and its police department (collec tively, the “City”) after she was injured by a police dog during the attempted arrest of her husband. Hyatt’s complaint alleged liability solely on the basis of Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2004) (the dog bite statute), which holds a dog owner strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog so long as the dog was not provoked and the victim was acting peaceably in a place where she had a lawful right to be. The City moved for summary judgment asserting that the dog bite statute did not apply to police…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka William Roth Kevin Anderson Dennis WaroshCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2004
- Olson v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Wegener v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Schumann v. McGinnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Rohmiller v. HartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Lorix v. Crompton Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Schatz v. Interfaith Care CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.