Legal Opinion

Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 19, 2012No. A10-2143PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STRAS, Justice.

This appeal arises out of three biting incidents involving a dog owned by re*630spondent Mitchell Sawh. After the first bite, appellant City of Lino Lakes (“the City”) designated Sawh’s dog as “potentially dangerous.” After the second bite, the City designated the dog as “dangerous.” And after the third bite, the City ordered the dog’s destruction. Sawh appealed the City’s decisions by writ of cer-tiorari. The court of appeals reversed the City’s decisions, holding that Sawh’s inability to challenge the “potentially dangerous” designation violated his right to procedural due…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Kentucky Department of Corrections v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Goss v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Dukowitz v. Hannon Security ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  2. Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. BergstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  3. Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
  4. Hall v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
  5. In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019

31 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