Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellants, both dog owners, seek reversal of the district court’s denial of their request for attorney fees after the court declared unconstitutional respondent municipality’s ordinances limiting the number of dogs per residential unit. Respondent seeks review of the judgment of unconstitutionality. Because we conclude that the ordinances are reasonably related to the public’s health, safety, and welfare, we reverse the summary judgment granted to appellants and affirm the denial of their motion for attorney fees.
FACTS
Respondent City of Sauk Rapids passed ordinances in…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Matter of BlilieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- City of St. Paul v. DalsinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- County of Freeborn v. ClaussenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Downing v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Wolff v. City of MonticelloDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Woll S. v. Monaghan TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- City of Marion v. SchoenwaldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Northern States Power Co. v. City of OakdaleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Dean v. City of WinonaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Altenburg v. Board of SupervisorsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.