|
|
===========================================================
For more information on governmental, municipal and township issues, contact Tim A. Strom, tas@hanftlaw.com or 218-722-4766.
===========================================================
Introduction
The presence of animals has always created benefits and burdens in townships. As a result, a rather substantial body of law has grown up over the years describing what powers and obligations towns (and individuals) have to control and regulate animals.
With population increasing in the countryside, my experience has been that animal complaints are being brought to town boards with increasing frequency. Neighbors' arguments about dogs (or other animals) frequently get heated and messy. New arrivals to towns often bring different ideas about animals, and sometimes lack the sense of community or shared values that can sometimes help defuse arguments before they begin.
For instance, last summer in the town where I live a horse attacked two teenagers on a town road, biting one of them fairly severely. Our peace officer responded, found the owner, and told her that she better corral her horse. She told him--in tones that implied that he was some type of insensitive backwoods Neanderthal--that, "Horses and other animals should not be kept in animal jails, which is what corrals are." He told her--in tones that implied that she better think about it--that if she did not corral her animal she very well might get some first-hand experience with human jails. It was a bluff--she had done nothing for which she could be jailed--but it did the trick. She decided to corral her horse.
Many towns are seeing more people, less cooperation, more animals, and less common sense. As a result, it seems to be a good time to review some of the more important legal rules governing animals in townships.
We will start by discussing animals running at large-that is, animals out on their own without restraint or confinement. Then we will switch to the seemingly endless problems that dogs can present, with an emphasis on barking dogs, dangerous dogs, and the legal boundaries for when a dog can and cannot be killed. After that, we'll look in a very general sense at laws regarding pounds, licenses, and fences. Finally, we'll close with some miscellaneous animal laws that do not fit comfortably into any of the previous areas.
Animals Running At Large
Most of us probably think that we know what it means for an animal to "ran at large." The term has that comforting sort of "I know it when I see it" feel. But because of the almost innumerable ways in which animals can cause mischief, it becomes difficult to define precisely what "running at large" means in all situations.
For example, can a ram that never leaves its owner's farm be running at large? The Minnesota Supreme Court thought so because, even if the ram was on its owner's property, it was still unrestrained and unconfined and therefore a "risk to owners of ewes in the neighborhood" unless properly watched by its owner or other human caretaker. 1 A useful but hardly comprehensive definition of "running at large" is "permitting [an animal] to stroll, wander, rove, or ramble at will without restraint or confinement." 2
Definitional questions to one side, animals running loose in a township present many real and potential problems. For that reason, several statutes give towns general power to deal with animals running at large. Several more grant power to deal with specific types of animals or particular kinds of situations.
General Town Powers-Animals Running at Large
Every town has the following sources of power for dealing with animals running at large.
A town's electors, at the annual meeting, may make "orders and bylaws" regarding the restraining of cattle, horses, sheep, swine, and other "domestic animals." The electors may also make,
"orders and bylaws" regarding impounding those types of animals and set fines for violations. 3
There are several interesting features to that statute. "Domestic animal" is not defined, nor do I find a case supplying a definition. Presumably, "domestic" animal means an animal that is not a "wild" animal. The use of the word "animal" leaves some open questions--for example, would a chicken (a domestic bird) be a domestic "animal?" Finally, this is a rare statute in the sense that it allows the electors to directly regulate something. Usually electors are given power to direct or authorize the board to pass an ordinance rather than power to draft and pass a law themselves.
Another statute empowers the electors at the annual meeting to authorize the board to enact an ordinance (1) regulating dogs and cats throughout the town and (2) regulating their presence, keeping, and running at large in the town.4 This statute should be read in connection with another statute that allows the board, within any platted residential area of the town, to (1) license and (2) regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets.5
The two statutes discussed in the preceding paragraph contain a number of important distinctions.
Note the division of power. In the first statute, the electors at the annual meeting have power to authorize the board to regulate and license dogs and cats--it follows that the board does not have that power unless the electors confer it. In the second statute, the board can go ahead and act without receiving approval or a "green light" from the electors--the statute gives the power directly to the board without the electors as an intermediary.
Note the difference in geographical scope. Under the second statute, the board can on its own initiative license and regulate pets in platted residential areas, but not outside those areas. In order to regulate pets outside the platted residential areas, the board must obtain the elector's authorization at the annual meeting (under the first statute).
Note that there are differences in what can be regulated. Those differences are largely technical, but might have practical consequences in certain situations. The first statute applies only to dogs and cats, while the second applies to dogs, never mentions cats, but includes "domestic animal pets." A cat would be a "domestic animal pet," so the second statute mirrors the first in giving power to deal with dogs and cats. But, by including "domestic animal pets" the second statute goes further, and could be used by the board to justify regulating pets other than dogs and cats in platted residential areas.
Another potential source of power for dealing with animals running at large is the town's "police" or "general welfare" power. In every town the electors at the annual meeting can authorize their board to pass ordinances promoting (1) the protection of public and private property, (2) the benefit of residence, trade, and commerce, (3) the health, safety, and good order of the town, and (4) the general welfare.6 Those "police" powers should enable towns in many situations to regulate animals that ran at large-after all, animals running at large create risks to private property, endanger agricultural pursuits, and potentially threaten the health, safety, and good order of the town.
"Urban" towns-towns that have qualified for Chapter 368 powers and have decided to exercise those powers-have it much simpler that the "rural" towns we've just discussed. The board of an "urban" town may by ordinance "regulate the keeping of animals [and] restrain their running at large [and] authorize their impounding and sale and summary destruction .... "7
Nothing tricky about that. Urban town boards do not need elector approval to deal with animals running at large. They do not need to keep in mind that the board can on its own initiative regulate pets in platted areas but needs elector approval to regulate dogs and cats outside those areas. A lot of the problems and admittedly esoteric questions discussed above that potentially apply to "rural" towns do not apply to "urban" town's because the legislature--in a rare burst of simplicity-- wrote that urban town boards may by ordinance regulate the keeping of animals, restrain their running at large, and provide for their impoundment and destruction.
Specific Statutes--Animals Running at Large
The statutes discussed above are general sources of power towns can use to regulate animals running at large. Now we turn to some specific statutes that deal with more particular situations. Some of these statutes impose obligations or duties on towns, while others are private laws setting out rules and procedures for citizens, with no requirement that a town become involved.
Section 346.16 prohibits running at large by the following animals: cattle, horses, asses, mules, sheep, swine, or goats. In addition to the usual meaning of "running at large"--animals allowed to be unconfined or unrestrained--the statute includes as a specific example of running at large the herding of animals across the land of another without permission. A person who "knowingly permits" an animal of the type listed to run at large is responsible for three times the damages caused by the animal. What "knowingly permits" means is unclear. It obviously means more than merely "permits," but the courts have not firmly established its dimensions. Until some definitive definition comes along, it apparently will be decided by jurors on a case by case basis.8 Note that this statute deals with private rights and remedies, and should not usually involve a town government.
Section 346.19, on the other hand, imposes duties on the chair of the town board and provides a misdemeanor penalty if the chair does not carry out the prescribed obligations. That statute applies to the following animals: stallions (over a year old), bulls (over nine months old), boars and rams (over three months old), or "breachy" cattle.9 It employs the usual standard for running at large (unrestrained or unconfined) but adds to that a definition of running at large that includes animals (of the designated type) that are not confined by a proper corral or legal fence.10
If a town board chair is notified that an animal of the type described is running at large, the chair is required to notify the animal's owner. If the owner does not immediately confine the animal, the owner is liable to the town for a fine of five dollars for every day that the animal runs at large. The chair is required to sue the owner to collect the fine which, if collected in a lawsuit, goes into the town's road and bridge fund (after deducting the costs of the lawsuit). The animal may be subject to a forced sale to pay the fine and the costs of the lawsuit.11 My advice would be to bring the lawsuit for the fine in conciliation court because generally the cost of getting an attorney involved would exceed the recoverable fine--although the statute allows recoveries for the cost of suit that term almost never includes attorney's fees.
If the chair cannot find the animal's owner, the chair is to seize the animal and put it in the public pound or, if none, some other enclosure. If after three days the animal is not claimed the animal can be sold at public auction, but there must be five days notice of the auction. The proceeds of the sale are used to pay the fine, then the costs of impounding the animal. Any surplus is to be held for the owner for one year, after which it is paid into the town's general fund.12
The fun part of the statute--at least to us non-farmers who do not have to get personally involved in the messy business--is that the chair of the town board has a unique duty if the owner after notice continues to let the animal ran at large. In that situation, the chair "shall forthwith cause the [animal] to be taken up and castrated." Not only that, it is to be castrated "in the usual manner."13
Any chair who refuses or neglects to perform the duties imposed by this statute is guilty of a misdemeanor.14 As a result, the town board chair should take seriously any complaint about these types of animals not being properly corralled or confined, and should read the entire statute carefully if such a complaint is made.
Rams have good reason to be nervous--not only must a town board chair in certain circumstances castrate a ram but any person who finds a ram among his sheep may castrate it.15 Of course, if you find a ram in your sheep and are tempted to castrate it, be good and sure it isn't your own ram.
In a county that has dog licensing in effect any person may impound any unlicensed dog found running at large and any peace officer shall impound or restrain any unlicensed dog (whether running at large or not). In such a county, it is to be presumed that a dog without a license on its collar is in fact unlicensed.16 The peace officer, after proving to the town treasurer that the dog was unlicensed and seized (or killed) within the town is entitled to payment from the treasurer of the glorious sum of two dollars, payable from the town treasury.17 In a county where licensing is in force it is unlawful for any person to harbor an unlicensed dog or permit it to be on their premises, and a violation subjects the person to a fine.18 A person who finds an unlicensed dog in such a county is required to "deliver" it to the town's humane officer or, if none, to a peace officer who then impounds it and notifies the dog's owner, if known, or posts a statutorily-described notice if the owner is not known.19
A somewhat similar provision applies to cattle, horses, mules, sheep, swine, or "any domestic fowls." Section 561.07 says that if any of these types of animals are running at large any person may distrain and impound them and any peace officer shall distrain and impound them.20 There is no apparent town involvement in this, except that towns with peace officers will have their officers subject to this duty.
Section 346.01 deals with strays. Actually, it deals with "estrays," which means strays. (Let me make an aside here--the animal control statutes, many of which are very old, are full of silly legal terms. For instance, as noted, you don't find a "stray," you find an "estray." If you knowingly permit an animal to run at large you might be liable for "treble" damages, not "triple" damages. If you find an animal running at large on your land and seize it you have "distrained" it, not "restrained" it. Can't anyone spell anymore? Those terms all mean the same thing. Finally, the term "distrained" carries a fair amount of irony for those who, like me, spoil dogs rotten and watch them slowly forget everything they ever learned about heeling, sitting, speaking, and so forth--for me, "distraining" an animal has a very literal meaning.)
Section 346.01 says that, with the exception of horses and mules, a person can take up any stray found on their land (the statute is silent on what can be done with horses or mules). If the finder knows who owns the stray, the finder must notify the owner within seven days and request that the owner, after paying the finder's reasonable charges for keeping the take the stray away.21
That's private law, but a town can become involved when the finder of a stray does not know who the owner is. In a sense, the stray may become the town's property.
Here's how, although it is a fairly convoluted story. A person who finds a stray under section 346.01 who does not know the identity of the owner is to file a notice with the town clerk, who sends the notice to the county recorder, who records it in the "Estray Book." The finder is then required to post notice in the town, describing the stray, where and when it was found, and identifying the finder. A finder who fails to give these notices can be liable to the owner for double any damages caused by the failure.22
If the owner remains unknown for a month, the finder is to have the stray appraised by a judge. The judge gives the finder (1) a certificate of appraisement showing the animal's appraised value and (2) probably some very dirty looks, because many judges won't have a clue about an animal's value and will probably not be amused by the fact that the statute limits them to charging 50 cents for the certificate of appraisement and six cents per mile for travel expenses.23
The finder files the certificate of appraisement with the town clerk and, if the owner does not claim the stray within a year, is to sell the stray at a public auction at which the finder can bid.24 The proceeds from the auction go first to pay any reasonable charges for keeping the stray, then to pay for the costs of the sale, and any surplus goes to the county treasurer.25
The town gets involved if the finder does not sell the unclaimed stray at auction after one year. If the finder does not sell the stray at public auction after the time for redemption expires, the finder must pay the town for the value of the stray and the town can sue the finder for its value.26
A final set of statutes--sections 346.08-.17--deal with persons who find any "beast" doing damage on their property. The procedures that are set up are elaborate, and are probably so complicated that virtually any sane person should strongly consider simply suing for damages in conciliation court. There is some slight town involvement.
In a nutshell, a person finding a "beast" doing damage on their property can seize the beast and notify the owner of the damage and the distraint. If the owner does not pay the damage, the finder can apply to a judge for an order appointing three town residents as appraisers, who receive the fabulous pay of one dollar per day. The appraisers set the amount of damages and-subject to numerous procedural rules-the animal can be sold to pay for those damages. The proceeds from the sale go to pay the damages, then the appraisers' fees, and any remaining money goes to the animal's owner. If the owner is not known or does not claim the surplus, the surplus is given to the town treasurer. if the owner does not claim the money from the treasurer within one year, the money belongs to the town.
Those are the principal rules regarding animals running at large. As we have seen, towns have general powers to pass ordinances regulating running at large in the township, although "rural" town boards might have to get authority from the electors before proceeding. There are then a set of specific statutes, sketched above, that deal with particular situations or particular types of animals running at large.
Dogs
While all sorts of animals can escape from their property, dogs are the most frequent offenders. There lots of laws regarding dogs-probably not surprising considering a dog's utility, prevalence, undying affection, and almost unlimited capacity to cause trouble. In what follows, I am not going to try to cover all of the laws about dogs but will hit on most of the more common questions.
When Can You Kill a Dog?
I grew up in the country, although not in farmland, and my friends and I were confused as youngsters about the usual things--sex, whether it was "triple" or "treble" damages, and when it was that you could legally kill a dog. Where it is that the legends and myths sprang from I'll never know (I'm talking about killing dogs now, not sex), but there were any number of theories about what constituted justifiable dogocide-a police officer could and would shoot a dog, it was rumored, if the dog walked on the gravel of the road shoulders in spring; a dog could be shot by any landowner finding it on his land no questions asked-boom he's dead, and that's it; a dog carrying a bone in the distance could be shot because it might be a bone from a deer or livestock. Now that I am old and a lawyer I understand that "triple" and "treble" damages are the same thing, but I still occasionally argue with friends about when a dog can be legally killed. The difference is that now I know the answer, even if my friends won't believe me.
What follows are all of the circumstances that I can find in which a dog can legally be killed.
The owner or caretaker of livestock or poultry may kill any dog found chasing, injuring, or "worrying" those animals on the owner or caretaker's land.27
Any person may kill any dog that is found killing, wounding, or "worrying" any horses, cattle, sheep, lambs, or other "domestic animals."28 This statute seems largely redundant with the one in the preceding paragraph. It is different in that it authorizes "any person" to kill the dog, rather than only the owner or caretaker of the threatened livestock. It adds "killing" to the previously described chasing, injuring, and "worrying," but that doesn't add much because a dog would be hard-pressed to kill livestock without first chasing, injuring, or at least worrying it.
The owner or caretaker of sheep may kill any dog found on her premises where the sheep are kept if the dog is not under human restraint or control.29
Any person may kill a dog that is known to be affected with hydrophobia (rabies).30 If the board of animal health or any local board of health has issued a rabies proclamation in a town, any person may kill any dog running at large on the public streets.31
Any person may kill a dog that "may suddenly attack" while the person is peacefully walking or riding and while the dog is out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper.32
All of the rules above come from statutes. The common law rule (judge-made law) regarding killing dogs likely still applies when it does not contradict any of the statutes described above. As stated by our court, the common-law rule is:
In order to justify such killing ... it must be under circumstances showing that the killing was a fair act of prudence on the part of the person doing the killing; reasonable regard being had to the value of the dog, the value of the property menaced, and the probability of present or future depredations. In other words, to warrant the killing of a dog for the protections of fowls and domestic animals, the circumstances must be such as to create a reasonable belief that such killing is necessary to prevent injury to such fowls or domestic animals. As is sometimes said, there must be an apparent necessity for the [killing], honestly believed to be real, and the acts of defense must in and of themselves be reasonable.33
All of the rules above deal with sudden executions. There are other circumstances in which a dog can be put to death following something of a trial, or at least a waiting period, and those follow.
If a dog is determined to be a "dangerous dog" (see the discussion below) and its owner does not take the precautions that the statute requires for "dangerous dogs," the dog can be seized, impounded, and destroyed if not reclaimed within seven days.34 If the owner twice fails to take the proper precautions in regard to a dog that has been determined to be a "dangerous dog," and is twice convicted of a misdemeanor on account of it, the court is to order the dog destroyed.35
A dog that habitually worries, chases, or molests teams or persons traveling peaceably upon public roads is a public nuisance, and any person can file a complaint in a specified form with a judge who, after hearing, shall order the dog killed if it is found that the dog is indeed a public nuisance.36 Note that the statute refers to "teams" but has never been amended to include "motor vehicles," and perhaps would not apply to a dog that chases cars. Whether a town could bring this complaint is not entirely clear, but it would probably qualify as a "person" and, if not, it would seem that a town supervisor could bring the complaint on the town's behalf.
In counties that require dogs to be licensed the life of a stray can be a short and harsh one. Section 347.17 provides that any person who finds an unlicensed dog must deliver it to the town's humane officer or a peace officer and, what's worse, the dog becomes an outcast-it is unlawful for any person to harbor an unlicensed dog that is required to be licensed or to permit it to remain upon the person's premises. The unlicensed dog is to be impounded and notice of its impoundment is to be given; thereafter if an owner does not claim it within five days it may be "dispose[d] of ... m a proper and humane manner," a euphemism for being killed.37
Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, any animal held in a pound may be destroyed at the end of five regular business days.38 After the five-day holding period expires any animal can be given to a research institution for research purposes, subject to two exceptions--(1) if the animal has a tag saying that it may not be used for research purposes it will simply be destroyed, and (2) if the owner refuses to reclaim the animal but directs the pound that the animal may not be used for research purposes it will simply be destroyed.39
Those are the legal ways in which dogs may be killed, and I find no other statutes on the subject. As you will see, most towns have little say over whether a dog is or is not to be killed. Because all towns have power to pass ordinances regulating the presence and keeping of dogs40 and "urban" towns have a specific grant of power to pass ordinances on the "summary destruction" of animals41, any town might pass an ordinance that allows a dog to be killed in a given situation. However, as a general matter I would advise a board to stay out of the business of destroying animals as far as possible, not only for political reasons but also for the potential repercussions that might flow from improperly killing an animal. Having said that disputes over the behavior of dogs oftentimes get heated and it is not uncommon for neighbors to come to the town board yelling and swearing that a dog should or must be destroyed. The rules above, I hope, give some guidance on that.
Barking Dogs
As more and more people move into the countryside there seem to be more and more complaints of barking dogs. These disputes often get ugly and heated. What can towns do about barking dogs?
There is no doubt that towns have power to pass ordinances regulating barking dogs. Subdivision twelve of section 368.01 gives "urban" town boards the power to regulate the keeping of animals. In "rural" towns, the board can pass ordinances regulating the presence and keeping of dogs or pets in platted residential areas and, if authorized by the electors at the annual meeting, can pass ordinances regulating the presence and keeping of dogs and cats throughout the township.42 All towns have the power to pass ordinances to further their police or general welfare powers, which likely encompasses ordinance aimed at barking dogs.
Although the power is there to regulate barking dogs (or other noisy animals), drafting a barking dog ordinance and implementing and enforcing it has been horrendously complicated by a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion.
The case is called City of Edina v. Dreher.43 A city had an ordinance that said no person could keep "any animal which shall by any noise disturb the peace and quiet of any persons in the vicinity." A city police officer received a complaint of a barking dog. When he arrived he sat outside his car about fifty yards from where the dog was and listened to it barking. He then found the owner, warned him, and gave him a copy of the ordinance. Two days later, a different person complained about the same dog. The same officer responded and stood outside the owner's house for about ten minutes listening to the dog bark. It barked about every ten seconds for ten minutes, accompanied by a soprano--a second dog that whined and howled in a higher pitched voice.
The officer cited the owner, who was convicted in county court. Our court of appeals reversed the conviction.
It said that ordinances must not be overly vague, and that persons of common intelligence must not be left to guess at the meaning of an ordinance. While that is hardly surprising, it went on to say that ordinances were vague if persons of common intelligence "differ as to the application" of an ordinance--conveniently forgetting that lawyers, judges, and others constantly disagree about the application of ordinances. Vagueness, the court said, not only leaves people guessing about what is permitted and not permitted, but invites discriminatory enforcement.
The court believed that the ordinance, by prohibiting animal noise that disturbed the peace and quiet of people in the vicinity, was too vague. The owner, it said, would have to guess at the meaning of the statute and the officer, it said, could be tempted to enforce it based on his "personal sense of annoyance." Because of that, the court concluded, the ordinance was impermissibly vague and could not be enforced.
That creates a real problem for any attorney attempting to draft a "barking dog" or "animal noise" ordinance, and for any town trying to enforce it. How do you define what impermissible barking is? How do you define what isn't impermissible barking? How do you specify the level of animal noise that is permitted and the level that is prohibited? Moreover, the court talked about the city ordinance being flawed because it failed to provide any "objective standard" for what was too much noise-how do you set an objective standard for when it is that "allowable" animal noise crosses the line and becomes too loud for neighbors to reasonably tolerate? Do you need to purchase and use a decibel meter? If so, from where should the decibels be measured? How long should the noise be monitored, how frequent must it be, how constant must it be? The court opinion makes drafting an ordinance very difficult, and makes enforcement a nightmare.
I do not have any tested answer for the problems the court created. My view is that trying to draft and enforce a "barking dog" ordinance that incorporates "objective" standards is going to be a nightmare as far as drafting is concerned, far too burdensome for towns to try to enforce, and likely will wind up missing a lot of situations where reasonable people would be offended by the noise while at the same time applying to situations where the noise wasn't all that bad.
My suggestion would be this. Draft an ordinance which prohibits the keeping of animals that have become a nuisance by habitual barking (or mewing, mooing, cawing, whatever). Include a specific section that defines habitual barking as frequent, loud barking that would offend and annoy reasonable people in the vicinity of the owner's premises. Specifically include in that definition language that says that the standard to be applied is not that of a person who is hypersensitive or overly sensitive to noise, but instead that the standard is that of a person of reasonable tolerance and sensibility. Then put the burden of initial enforcement on the person complaining-require them to file a complaint with the board which triggers a hearing process that includes notifying the accused owner of the complaint, of the terms of the ordinance, and of the date, time, and nature of the hearing. Have the complaining neighbors and the owner come to a hearing before the board and present any testimony or witnesses that they wish. Provide that, if it is found by the board at the hearing that the dog has become a nuisance by habitual barking no penalty results. However, provide that any subsequent complaint of nuisance barking by the same dog will be a violation of the ordinance with a resulting fine. The complaining party, under such an ordinance, gets a chance to persuade three disinterested people (the board) that the level of noise is impermissibly annoying, and the owner gets the chance to rebut that. No penalty ensues after the initial determination that the dog's barking is a nuisance. Instead, the owner is merely put on notice that the next incident of unreasonably annoying barking will result in a fine.
Does that satisfy the court's concerns in Dreher? To tell the truth, I don't know. It does, however, set something of an objective standard to combat the court's concern about vagueness and creates a board hearing procedure that may answer the court's concern about discriminatory enforcement.
Dangerous Dogs (and Control of Other Dangerous Animals)
What obligation--if any--does a town have to control dangerous dogs in the township? What potential liabilities does a town incur if it decides to regulate dangerous dogs? Can a town exercise control over dangerous animals and still avoid liability on a claim that an injury occurred because the town failed to exercise appropriate control?
The argument can be made that towns do not have any obligation to police or control dangerous dogs (or other animals) in the township. After all, the town does not own the dogs. It is the duty of the dog owner to control the dog, not the town. A town should be allowed to stay completely out of the "business" of controlling dangerous animals if it decides to do so, and should have no liability for attacks by dangerous dogs if it stays out of that business--right?
Maybe. I find the law in this area unclear.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared that a city has a duty to control a dangerous dog on its streets or sidewalks if (1) it clearly knows the dog is dangerous and is endangering people on streets or sidewalks, (2) the city is reasonably capable of confining and controlling the dog, and (3) the city has ordered the dog owner to control the dog and knows that the owner has refused to do so. Under those circumstances, the city may be liable to a person injured by a dog on its streets or sidewalks.44
Would that rule, applicable to cities, apply to towns? Probably. The court reasoned that cities traditionally have had a duty to keep their streets and sidewalks safe from known dangerous conditions like snow and ice, and then extrapolated that there should be no reason not to extend that to "moving hazards" like dangerous dogs. Towns have a general duty to use reasonable care to keep their roads or other town property reasonably free from known dangerous conditions, so to be consistent you would think the court would make a similar extrapolation with regard to towns and hold them liable under similar circumstances. Of course, most towns have few or no sidewalks, but the rule could apply to dangerous dogs on town roads or road easements.
But the court's holding also says that a city is liable when the city is reasonably capable of confining and controlling the dog, has ordered the owner to control the dog, and knows that the owner has failed to do so. What if a town, for economic reasons, decides that it simply does not have the personnel, money, or resources to control animals in the township? That town would not fulfilled the elements specified by the court for liability. Moreover, that town could reasonably claim that it made a discretionary decision not to control animals due to limited funds and resources, and therefore should be entitled to discretionary immunity against any lawsuit.
Those considerations lead me to believe that a town can be liable for failing to reasonably control known dangerous dogs (or other animals) once it makes the policy decision to control dogs (or other animals) in the first place. On the other hand, a town that decides for reasons of fiscal and personnel limitations that it will not get into the "business" of controlling animals (and does in fact stay completely out of that "business") has, to my mind, a fair argument that it should not be liable for any injuries caused by animals on town roads or road easements.
If a town decides to get into the animal control business, it should be aware of one other complication.
Sections 347.50-.55 deal with "dangerous dogs." A dangerous dog is defined by the statute as a dog that (1) has without provocation inflicted substantial bodily harm (as defined in the criminal code) on a person, (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation on another's property, or (3) has been found to be a "potentially dangerous dog" and then aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers a person or domestic animal.45
If a dog is determined to be a dangerous dog, the owner can only keep it subject to a number of restrictions and safety precautions. The animal has to be registered as a dangerous dog with the county, and can only be registered upon proof by the owner (1) that it is kept in a statutorily defined special enclosure, (2) that statutorily defined warning signs have been posted, (3) that it will not be allowed out of its enclosure unless it is properly muzzled and leashed, and (4) that there is a bond or liability insurance policy in place providing at least $50,000 of coverage for any person who might be injured by the dog.46
Now comes the kicker for towns, and it lies in the definition of the "animal control authority."
The "animal control authority having jurisdiction" is responsible for seizing dangerous dogs that are not properly registered and for seizing dangerous dogs if the precautions applicable to the dog are not being obeyed.
So what? The problem is that "animal control authority" is defined to include an agency of any governmental subdivision which is responsible for animal control operations within its jurisdiction.47 If a town gets into the business of regulating animals within the township there is certainly room to argue that it is the "animal control authority" having jurisdiction. If it is, then the town has to monitor and regulate the obligations regarding dangerous dogs. And if a town is the animal control authority having jurisdiction and fails to reasonably monitor and enforce those obligations, there is no reason to think that it could not be liable to a person injured by the dangerous dog if proper monitoring and enforcement would have avoided the injury.
In other words, if your town is in the business of regulating animals-particularly if the town in some measure controls dangerous animals--there is a fair chance that you are responsible for regulating dangerous dogs under the statute and another fair chance that you might be dragged into a lawsuit if the dangerous dog hurts someone.
The decision to regulate dangerous dogs or dangerous animals in a township is ultimately a policy decision for the board. As mentioned, my view is that a town (1) that decides to and in fact does stringently keep away from regulating dangerous animals and (2) explains and documents that its policy is based on economic and personnel limitations has a fair argument that it is immune from lawsuits based on injuries to people by animals in the town. Such a town would also have a fair argument that it is not responsible for enforcing the dangerous dog statute. Whether that is what you want for your town is an entirely separate question, and it may well be that you find a "hands-off' approach to problems posed by dangerous animals far more distasteful than the prospects of lawsuits against the town for alleged failures to properly control dangerous animals.
A potential middle ground would be to pass an ordinance in which the town sets out the fact that it does not have the time, money, or resources to control dangerous animals in the township. The ordinance could then set out the fact that controlling animals is the duty of the owner, not the town. Having said that, the ordinance could then fines owners if their animals were not kept under proper control. The thrust of the ordinance would be that owners, who have the duty to control their animals, can be fined for violations but that the town for economic reasons cannot and will not control owners' animals for them. In other words, the town is fining owners, not controlling animals. That distinction might allow the town to exercise some control over owners through fines but still maintain the defense that the town does not control animals, and is therefore entitled to immunity because its policy decision to not control animals was based upon fiscal reasons.
Pounds
Towns can establish pounds for animals. In a "rural" town the electors at the annual meeting may decide on the location of pounds and set the number of poundmasters; they may also discontinue any existing pound.48 If the electors at the annual meeting decide to establish a pound, a poundmaster must be chosen to run it.49 Note a couple things about these statutes. First, this appears to be another rare example of a statute where the electors themselves, without board involvement, are entitled to do something. While many statutes governing "rural" towns allow the electors to authorize the board to do something, this one lets the electors do it themselves. Second, while the statute gives the electors power to establish a pound, decide on its location, and set the number of poundmasters, it does not specify who chooses the poundmaster(s) to run it. It is unclear whether that is a board function or something within the province of the electors. In "rural" towns the electors also have power to make "orders and bylaws" regulating the impounding of domestic animals running at large.50
An "urban" town exercising powers under Chapter 368 does not have this dichotomy of power between the electors and the board. In an "urban" town the board itself, without elector involvement, may by ordinance authorize the impoundment and sale or destruction of animals.51 Fairly implied in that power would be the power to establish and operate a pound.
A number of statutes apply to pounds. The State Board of Animal Health has some control over pounds, the Humane Society may become involved, and there are rules and regulations regarding the proper keeping of various types of animals. Those statutes are too numerous to discuss here, but any poundmaster should be familiar with them.
If an animal is seized by a town and impounded, it must be held for redemption by its owner for at least five regular business days and, after the expiration of that period, it can be destroyed or provided to a qualified institution that has requested animals for research purposes.52 Failure to observe the five day holding period can subject the poundmaster or the person who destroys the animal to a lawsuit for damages.53 Note that any town may by ordinance specify a longer time for holding an animal.54
Section 35.71 requires all pounds to keep certain records regarding the animals that they have seized, transferred or disposed. The records must be kept for at least six months, must be available to the public, and must be kept in a form that allows "easy perusal" of the records. The records must at a minimum show (1) a description of every animal impounded by species, breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing features, (2) where the animal was seized, (3) when it was seized, (4) the name and address of any person from whom any animal (three months old or older) was received, and (5) the name and address of any person to whom the animal (three months old or older) was transferred. It follows that a pound cannot refuse to tell an owner the identity of someone
who bought their animal.55
Section 367.24 regulates the way in which a poundmaster at a town pound may charge and collect fees. The town board sets the poundmaster's fees for seizing animals, keeping them in the pound, and discharging or selling them. A town poundmaster has a lien on any impounded animal for the poundmaster's fees, and the poundmaster is entitled to hold an animal in the pound until those fees are paid. A poundmaster may give notice of the proposed sale of any animal if the animal is not reclaimed within four days of its impoundment--the notice must be posted, and there must be 15 days between the time of the notice and the sale of the animal. The poundmaster collects the money at the sale, and is to account to the town for the proceeds--in general, the poundmaster is entitled to take out of the proceeds his fees and charges and deliver the balance to the chair of the town board with an explanation of what animal was sold, what the purchase price was, and what his fees and charges were. The town then holds the money it receives for 30 days. If the owner appears in that 30 day period, the town must give him the money; if not the money becomes the town's property and is to be deposited into the town treasury.
Licenses
Towns have power to license animals in certain circumstances. Counties can--but many do not--license dogs. If a county licenses dogs, towns in the county have some obligations and responsibilities imposed by virtue of the county licensing law. Thus we need to consider first a town's ability to license animals and then turn to a town's obligations if the county in which it is located decides to license dogs.
Town Licensing
A town's power to license animals is convoluted, so read carefully here. Several factors influence a town's ability to license animals, including (1) what s are being licensed, (2) whether all or part of the town is subject to licensing, and (3) whether the licensing is done with or without elector authorization at the annual meeting.
In a "rural" town, there are two levels of licensing. The board on its own initiative, without any elector involvement, has power to license dogs and other "domestic animal pets." However, the board can only do that within platted residential sections of the town.56 It has no power--by itself--to license dogs or other domestic animal pets outside a platted residential area.
The electors in a rural town May, at the annual meeting, authorize the board to enact an ordinance for licensing "dogs and cats" throughout the township.57 While this authorization allows the board to license outside platted residential areas, it only applies to "dogs and cats," not dogs and other "domestic animal pets." As a result, a board on its own initiative can license dogs and other domestic animal pets in platted residential areas, needs elector approval to license dogs and cats outside platted residential areas, and outside platted residential areas can only license dogs and cats, not dogs and other "domestic animal pets."
An "urban" town has no greater licensing power than its "rural" cousins. The powers that "urban" town boards have are listed in section 368.01, and there is a section on powers to deal with animals. Strangely, there is nothing in that section on licensing dogs, cats, or other "domestic animal pets." It does say that an "urban" town board may "license and regulate riding academies," but does not say that an "urban" town board can license any kind of animal.58 That does not mean that an "urban" town has no power to license animals. "Urban" towns have Chapter 368 powers in addition to any other town powers--in other words, an "urban" town continues to have its "rural" powers and the additional powers under Chapter 368.59 Because there is no licensing power under Chapter 368 an "urban" town has the same licensing powers as a "rural" town.
The statutes provide no rules, directions, or guidelines for what a town's licensing law should or should not contain.
County Licensing
Sections 347.08-.21 set out the procedures and rules regarding county licensing of dogs. If a county licenses dogs, towns within the counties fall under some obligations with regard to the licensing laws.
A county does not have to license dogs, and many don't. A county board may license dogs if it decides to do so and must license dogs if it receives a petition signed by at least 25 percent of the county's livestock and poultry farmers.60
If a county decides to license dogs it must provide that every dog older than six months have a license, and that dogs be licensed annually.61 Town clerks become involved in the process of issuing licenses, handing out dog tags, collecting the license fees, and delivering fees to the county with an accounting for the fees, licenses, and tags. There are relatively complicated statutory procedures and rules for that--hopefully made somewhat easier by forms that the county supplies to town clerks-which I will not set out here.62 Clerks should take their duties seriously because the county auditor is required to turn any accounting discrepancy over to the county attorney for investigation.63 Clerks are also required to notify the county auditor if anyone fails or refuses to get a dog license, in which case the county attorney is to investigate and institute proceedings against the miscreant.64
The license fees go into a county fund called, fittingly enough, the dog license fund. The county uses this fund to pay itself for administering the license law and, if there is an annual surplus of more than $1000, the surplus is to be paid to the towns (or cities) in proportion to the fees they contributed to the fund.65
Owners whose domestic animals (including poultry and game birds) are lolled or injured by dogs may make a claim against the dog licensing fund. The owner must within ten days of learning of the damage file a written complaint for damages with the town clerk.66 Within thirty days of the filing of the complaint, the town board-or a committee appointed by the board--must investigate the claim for damages, take any evidence or testimony, and report in writing to the county auditor setting out the results of their investigation, the evidence taken, and the amount of damages incurred.67 The county board then decides to allow or disallow the claim against the dog license fund, but is limited to awarding no more than $100 for each horse, mule, or bovine, $30 for each swine, $15 for a sheep or goat, and $3 for each fowl.
The statutes authorizing a county to license dogs say that they are not intended to prevent "municipalities" from licensing dogs.68 The problem with that language is that, as a general rule, towns are not included within the term "municipalities" when used in statutes.69 Consequently, there is room to believe that town ordinances regarding dog licenses are preempted if a county has a dog licensing law. Whether that argument is in fact made (by the counties or others) is something I do not know--there is no dog licensing in my county, and I find no cases on the subject.
Fences
Good fences make good neighbors. Disputes over fences make town board supervisors fence viewers.
In addition to the glamour, glitz, and razor's edge excitement every town board supervisor enjoys, your resume can also boast the daunting and awe-inspiring credential of "fence viewer."
Chapter 344 sets out rules regarding partition fences in Minnesota and establishes the duties of supervisors as fence viewers. Chapter 344 has two significant exceptions to it. First town boards can resolve to exclude from the fence rules owners or occupants whose land, taken together, is less than 20 acres.70 Second, if eight or more freeholders in the town petition the board to do so, the board can adopt its own policies and procedures to deal with partition fences and, once the policies and procedures are approved by the electors at the annual meeting (or a special meeting called for that purpose), they supersede Chapter 344 unless the fence in question runs on or crosses over the line between two towns.71
The essential purpose of fence viewers is to resolve disputes between neighbors who share a common fence between their respective property lines. Although this is not in a strict sense a power to control animals, it can in appropriate instances be used to address quarrels between neighbors if improper fencing lies at the heart of the animal control dispute.
Chapter 344 includes a large number of procedural rules and circumstances in which fence viewers can resolve partition fence disputes. Here, we'll only address those in a basic summary or overview.
Fence viewers' duties are judicial in nature-that is, the supervisors as fence viewers are acting largely in the role of judges or judicial officers regarding disputes.72 Fence viewers arguably have exclusive jurisdiction over whether or how a partition fence should be built-the statute says that if adjoining landowners disagree over the kind of fence to be built on a division line the matter "must be referred" to the fence viewers.73 As to existing fences, a person may complain to the fence viewers if their neighbor fails to repair or rebuild (or refuses to pay for a repair or rebuilding of) a portion of the partition fence.74
Section 344.02 defines what types of fences are legally sufficient. There are five categories of legally appropriate fences, but the last category largely swallows up the first four. The first four categories require that fences must be supported by well-set posts not more than one rod apart, and then go on to describe what types of woven wire and barbed wire between the posts are considered legally appropriate.75 The fifth category to some extent gobbles up the first four, because it accepts as appropriate most any other type of fence that the fence viewers believe to be equivalent to the four specific types listed.76
Fence viewers cannot on their own initiative address a partition fence dispute. A neighbor has to bring the dispute to the fence viewers and pay for their time-the person requesting the fence viewers' services must deposit $60 with the town treasurer before they perform any service.77
In a very general sense--and subject to numerous rules in Chapter 344 regarding notices, hearings, and other procedural matters--the fence viewers upon receiving a complaint will notify the neighbors to meet with them at the site of the fence or the site where the fence is proposed to be built. The fence viewers then make their decision--be it that a fence needs to be built, rebuilt, repaired, or so forth-and allocate the expenses between the neighbors. If one neighbor refuses to pay his share or do his part--again, this is in a very general sense-the other can do the work and the viewers then give him a certificate showing their determination of what his neighbor's fair share of the work should have been. Armed with this certificate, the neighbor who built or repaired the fence can sue the other to recover the amount in the certificate and, if successful, is entitled to double the amount in the certificate.78
Bear in mind that this is a very general description of the procedure, and that the courts have held that fence viewers must precisely and exactly follow the statutory procedures in Chapter 344 if their actions are to have any validity-in other words, you will want to check the statute itself in connection with any fence dispute and follow it exactly.79
Miscellaneous
A handful of provisions dealing with town regulation of animals or duties in regard to animals do not fit in any of the categories above, and are listed here.
Animal Carcasses
The State Board of Animal Health regulates the proper disposition of animal carcasses. Generally speaking, a person is required to either bury (at least three feet deep) or thoroughly bum an animal carcass within a reasonable time after the animal has died. Anyone who does not properly dispose of a carcass has created a public nuisance. The Board of Animal Health's rules and jurisdiction does not apply to "domestic animals that are commonly kept in houses"--household pets--and do not prevent a town from regulating the disposition of such pets.80
Bounties for Gophers, Ground Squirrels, and Woodchucks
Sections 348.12-.13 regulate the bounties towns may set and pay for the destruction of gophers, ground squirrels, and woodchucks. Sentence for sentence, it has some of the oddest language of any statute in the books.
The heart of it is not especially strange--it sets out procedures for paying bounties to people who kill gophers, ground squirrels and woodchucks in the town. The town can set the amount of the bounty for each animal, designate the months or seasons in which the bounty will be in force, and there are provisions for insuring that the animals were killed in the township and so forth.
The statute contains what is perhaps the oddest directive in town law, maybe even stranger than the one about the town chair taking up a ram and having it castrated in the usual manner.81 The bounty statute says, in language that every supervisor should have engraved on a plaque and displayed in the town hall to terrify the citizenry: "The chair to whom such feet are displayed shall immediately cause such feet to be destroyed."82 That's practically medieval.
What it means, of course, is that the feet of the animal are presented as a prerequisite to claiming a bounty but, if citizens don't know that, you might be able to shut down some stupid arguments pretty fast by showing them that language and scaring the stuffing out of them.
What's almost weirder about this statute is that in a town within a county with a population (% of between 45,000-49,000 inhabitants according to the 1950 census, the board may by resolution require that the tail rather than the feet of the striped, gray, or pocket gophers be produced.
Greased Pigs and Turkey Chases
It is a misdemeanor to operate, run, or participate in an activity in which an oiled or greased pig is released and chased.83 It is a misdemeanor to operate, run, or participate in an activity in which a chicken or turkey is released and chased.84
Dogs or Cats in Locked Cars
A peace officer or a member of a fire department (including volunteer fire departments) or rescue squads may use reasonable force to enter into a vehicle to remove a dog or cat that has been left unattended in a manner that endangers the animal's health or safety.85
===========================================================
1 Goener v. Woll, 26 Minn. 154, 157, 2 N.W. 163 (1897).
2 Peterson v. Pawelk, 263 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. 1979); Serr v. Biwabik Concrete Aggregate Co., 202 Minn. 165, 278 N.W. 355, 364 (1938).
3 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 3.
4 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 13.
5 Minn. Stat. § 366.01, subd. 2.
6 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 17.
7 Minn. Stat. § 368.01, subd. 12.
8 See, Peterson v. Pawelk, 263 N.W.2d 634, 627 (Minn. 1978).
9 To be very honest, as someone who grew up and still lives on the north shore of Lake Superior, far removed from the farm belt, I do not have a clue as to what "breachy" cattle are. Nor do I find it defined in any dictionary.
10 For a discussion of what a "legal" fence is, see the section on fences or, if your copy of the Minnesota Statutes is close by read Minn. Stat. § 344.02, subd 1.
11 Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subds. 1 & 2.
12 Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subd. 4.
13 Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subd. 5.
14 Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subd. 5.
15 Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subd. 5.
16 Minn. Stat. § 347.14, subd. 1.
17 Minn. Stat. § 347.14, subd 2.
18 Minn. Stat. § 347.14, subds. 2 & 3. The fine is to be not less than five or more than fifty dollars per violation.
19 Minn. Stat. § 347.14, subd. 2.
20 Minn. Stat. § 561.07.
21 Minn. Stat. § 346.02.
22 Minn. Stat. § 346.02.
23 Minn. Stat. § 346.03. Note that the animal need not be appraised if its value is less than ten dollars--a finder can keep animal worth less than ten dollars and it becomes the finder's animal if the owner fails to claim it within one year. Minn. Stat. § 346.05.
24 Minn. Stat. §§ 365.03, 365.05.
25 Minn. Stat. § 346.05.
26 Minn. Stat. § 346.05. Again, the finder has no obligation to sell a stray at public auction if its value was less that ten dollars, and is entitled to simply keep the stray if the owner does not reclaim it within one year.
27 Minn. Stat. § 347.03.
28 Minn. Stat. § 347.17. Note that the attorney general, in an opinion to which I do not currently have access, apparently has stated his view that cats would not qualify as "domestic animals" for the purposes of this statute. Op. Atty. Gen. 146c (5/12/59).
29 Minn. Stat. § 347.03.
30 Minn. Stat. § 347.17.
31 Minn. Stat. § 35.69.
32 Minn. Stat. § 347.17.
33 O'Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 221 N.W. 430, 431 (1928).
34 Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 2.
35 Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 3.
36 Minn. Stat. §§ 347.04-.06.
37 Minn. Stat. § 374.14, subd. 2.
38 Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3.
39 Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3.
40 Minn. Stat. §§ 365.10, subd. 13; 366.01, subd. 2.
41 Minn. Stat. § 368.01, subd. 13.
42 Minn. Stat. §§ 366.01, subd. 2, 365.10, subd. 13.
43 454 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. App. 1990) (rev. den. 6115190).
44 Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 298 Minn. 205, 214 N.W.2d 346, 349 (1974).
45 Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2. A "potentially dangerous dog" is one that (1) has without provocation bit a person or domestic animal, (2) has chased or approached a person in an apparent attitude of attack while off its owner's property, or (3) has a known tendency, propensity, or disposition to attack without provocation causing injury or threatening the safety of persons or domestic animals. Id., subd. 3.
46 Minn. Stat. § 347.51-.52.
47 Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 7.
48 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 1a.
49 Minn. Stat. § 365.13.
50 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 3.
51 Minn. Stat. § 368.01, subd. 13.
52 Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3.
53 E.g., Wilson v. City of Eagan, 297 N.W.2d 146, 151 (Minn. 1980). See also, Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478 App. 1994).
54 Minn. Stat. § 35.71. subd. 3.
55 Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. App. 1995).
56 Minn. Stat. § 366.01, subd. 2.
57 Minn. Stat. § 365.10, subd. 13.
58 Minn. Stat. § 368.01, subd. 13.
59 Minn. Stat § 368.01, subds. 1 & 1a. The statute says that "urban" towns have "the powers enumerated in this section," and then goes on to list the "urban" town powers. The statute nowhere says that an "urban" town does not have the powers that "rural" towns have under Chapters 365, 366, 367, or elsewhere.
60 Minn. Stat. § 347.08, subd. 1.
61 Minn. Stat. § 347.09. Note that a dog who is "just visiting" the county need not be licensed-a dog that is in the county for less than thirty days needs no license. Minn. Stat. § 347.20.
62 Those with a need to review and study those dreary procedures and rules will find them at Sections 347.09-.13.
63 Minn. Stat. § 347.11, subd. 3.
64 Minn. Stat. § 347.19.
65 Minn. Stat. § 347.13.
66 Minn. Stat. § 347.15, subd. 1.
67 Minn. Stat. § 347.15, subd. 1.
68 Minn. Stat. § 347.21.
69 State Dept. of Highway v. O'Connor, 289 Minn. 243, 183 N.W.2d 574 (1971).
70 Minn. Stat. § 344.011.
71 Minn. Stat. § 344.20.
72 Rice v. Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. App. 1994).
73 Minn. Stat. § 344.02, subd. 2.
74 Minn. Stat. § 344.04.
75 The categories are (1) at least 32 inch woven wire with two barbed wires above the woven wire, the lower barb wire within four inches of the upper edge of the woven wire and the second barbed wire not more than eight inches above the first, (2) at least 40 inch woven wire with one barbed wire not more than four inches above the woven wire, (3) at least 48 inch high woven wire with one barbed wire not more than four inches above the woven wire, and (4) at least four barbed wires with at least 40 barbs to the rod with the top wire no more than 48 inches high and the bottom wire 12-16 inches from the ground. Minn. Stat § 344.02, subd. 1.
76 So long as the fence viewers think the fence is equivalent to the four prescribed woven and barbed wire fences, the fence is a legal fence--that includes fences made of rails, timbers, wires, boards, stone walls, or incorporating streams, lakes, ditches, or hedges. Minn. Stat. § 344.02, subd. 1.
77 Minn. Stat. § 344.18; Op. Atty. Gen. 631-H (4/23/56). The fence viewers are entitled to $15 for "each day's" employment, and the $60 dollar deposit goes toward that. The fence viewers are not to be paid out of town funds. If any of the $60 deposited with the town treasurer is left over after the fence viewers have completed their service it is to be returned to the person who deposited it. Minn. Stat. § 344.19.
78 Minn. Stat. § 344.04-.05.
79 See, Rice v. Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. App. 1994); Miles v. Althoff, 373 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. App. 1985).
80 Minn. Stat. § 35.82, subd. 4.
81 As to castrating the ram in the usual manner--for those of you are who skimming and wondering what the hell I am talking about--see Minn. Stat. § 346.19, subd. 5 and the on above about animals running at large.
82 Minn. Stat. § 348.13.
83 Minn. Stat. § 343.36.
84 Minn. Stat § 343.36.
85 Minn. Stat. § 346.57.
===========================================================
For more information on governmental, municipal and township issues, contact Tim A. Strom, tas@hanftlaw.com or 218-722-4766.
===========================================================
The information provided in this article is general in nature and should not be used as a substitute for professional services and advice. The communication and receipt of this information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult with their legal counsel before taking any action on matters covered in this article.
===========================================================
Copyright 1997, 2001 by Hanft Fride, P.A. All rights reserved. Hanft Fride, A Professional Association, 1000 U.S. Bank Place, 130 W. Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802. Phone 218-722-4766; fax 218-529-2401.
|
