Hannan v. City of Minneapolis
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Because relator has not identified conflicts between state and local law on the control and destruction of dangerous animals, we affirm an order of destruction issued by the City of Minneapolis. We also find no merit in relator’s arguments that state law preempts the municipal ordinance or that city proceedings occurred in this case without due process.
FACTS
In June 2000, the City of Minneapolis Animal Control Division issued an order for destruction of relator Wilbur Hannan’s dog. The order was based on the dog’s aggressive behavior, with the conclusion that it…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of RichfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY BY THE SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- The Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Larson v. New Richland Care CenterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- State v. DaileySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re the Appeal of RocheleauCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Puppies 'N Love v. City of Phx.District Court, D. Arizona · 2017
- Minn. Chamber Commerce v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019