Legal Opinion
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 20, 2004No. A03-1707PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.
After a police dog bit her during the arrest of her husband, respondent Lena M. Hyatt sued appellants, the Anoka Police Department and the City of Anoka (collectively referred to as the city), under the “dog bite” statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2002). The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability upon the owner of a dog for injuries caused to a person, does not apply to police dogs; (2) the city is entitled to statutory immunity for its decision to own police dogs; (3) the city is entitled to vicarious official…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Pletan v. GainesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Watson v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hyatt v. Anoka Police DepartmentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Hyatt v. Anoka Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Hyatt v. Anoka Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Hyatt v. Anoka Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005