Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Christopherson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 18, 2012No. A11-0191PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

This case requires us to interpret the Minnesota dog owner’s liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010). Respondent Gordon Helmer Anderson (Anderson) was injured during an attack on his dog, Tuffy, by a dog named Bruno, owned by respondent Neil Raymond Christopherson. Anderson, along with his wife, Maxine Anderson, sued Neil Christopherson and his father, appellant Dennis Christopher-son, arguing, among other claims, that the Christophersons are strictly liable for Anderson’s injuries under MinmStat. § 347.22. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lubbers v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. Wartnick v. Moss & BarnettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'NSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  4. J.E.B. v. DanksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  5. City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual Insurance CompanyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
  3. Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2013
  4. Morgan v. MarquisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
  5. Andrew Henry Lieberman v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API