Summary Judgment In Minnesota Case

On 05/06/17, at 12:28pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 3162 E 5th Ave, on a dog on dog or cat attack no known owner of attack dog. I arrived at the location and met with the caller Carrie Samander and her boyfriend complainant Edward Oryan. I asked what happened, Mr. Oryan stated that he was walking his dog (grey/white Pit Bull) down the alley when the neighbor’s dog (white/brown Pit Bull) down the street (3189 E. 6th Ave) got loose and attacked his dog. Mr. Oryan dog protected him by getting in front of him and defending him against the pit bull. An unknown male Hispanic juvenile came out and tried to retrieve the white/brown pit bull. Mr. Oryan took his dog home and Ms. Samander than contacted the Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC). Ms. Samander stated that this is the second instance in the last few months that this white/brown pit bull got loose and attack her dog. Ms. Samander stated the injuries to her dog are minor but, that she will still be taking her dog to his injuries looked at. Ms. Samander dog had visible injuries to its ear, to the right side of its head and to the middle section of his back. I took

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

In this case, a real estate owner filled action in the courts in Austria in order to prevent the establishment of a power plant 115 kilometers from the country's borders in Czech. He claimed that the construction had been irregularly licensed and that the effects of radionuclides generated from the establishment's operations would be detrimental to his business. He was certain that the radioactive-contanined water vapor and excessive warmth which were environmentally hazardous.

The issue in this case is whether under Tennessee Code Annotated § 44-8-413, our client, Kevin Gates, can be held responsible for his neighbor’s dog bite injuries, depending on his knowledge of the potentially “dangerous propensities” of his three dogs.

On 09/11/16 at 5:57pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 841 Crevis Lane on a possible nuisance dog; dog still at large, threat to safety. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant John Haywood. Mr. Haywood stated that he was going to his vehicle to put his daughter car set in when the neighbor’s dog came from behind him and started growling and barking at him. Mr. Haywood ran into the garage to get away. He contacted Franklin County Animal Care and Control due to the dog being previously designated dangerous. Mr. Haywood recorded the dog loose near his vehicle. I advised Mr. Haywood if he know if the dog was still loose, Mr. Haywood was unsure. I advised him I will need to check with the dog owners to make sure the dog has return home and I will return to talk to him.

On 08/26/16 at 1:48pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 900 Block of Heyl Ave when I saw a black and white Chihuahua running loose with no known dog owner around. I followed the dog to 969 Heyl Ave where dog owner Donna Hanes open the door and let the dog inside. Ms. Hanes stated that the dog must have gotten loose when it was in the back yard. I asked Ms. Hanes if her dog was current on dog license and vaccinations, Ms. Hanes stated he was not. I issued Ms. Hanes violations for failure to license and failure to vaccinate her dog name Tito.

On 06/20/17 at 1:50pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 2100 Block of Lynbridge Drive when I saw a brindle/white pit bull running loose in the area. I took pictures of the dog loose. I exited my vehicle and chase the pit bull to the backyard of a fence in house. I placed a leash on the pit bull and put her in my vehicle. The pit bull had no identifying tags to indicate ownership. I transported the dog to the Franklin County Animal Shelter (FCACC). Dog owner Devon Gordon redeemed the dog on 06/24/17. Ms. Gordon did not show proof of dog license or vaccinations. I issued Ms. Gordon violations for failure to license, failure to vaccinate and failure to control her dog name Baby.

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

On 07/14/16 at 7:07pm, I was dispatched to 1494 Cypresswood Court on a dog at large patrol only. I was arrived at the location and was flagged down by the complainant. The complainant stated the dog was running loose near Dublin Granville Road, her and her husband chase the dog in this general area to prevent the dog from getting hit by a car. The dog was in the backyard of 1494 Cypresswood Court. I enter the backyard and was able to place a leash on the dog. I place the dog in my van. Dog owner Heather Davis reclaimed the dog on 07/15/2016. Ms. Davis was unable to show proof of dog license and vaccinations. I issued Ms. Davis violations for failure to license, failure to vaccinate and failure to control.

Holding: Yes, the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their 5th amendment before an interrogation?

On 11/22/16, at 4:02pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to the 600 block of Bedford Ave on dog at large patrol only. I arrived in the area and saw two dogs, one a small mix breed black and white and a tan and white pit bull, in the front of 681 Bedford Ave. I exited my vehicle and slowly approached the house. I knocked on the dog. Dog owner Robin Holmes-Muhammad answered the door. I asked if the two dogs on her porch belong to her, she stated that they did. I advised Ms. Holmes-Muhammad that we received a complaint that the dogs were running loose. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad apologized and took both dogs inside the house. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad stated that the tan/white pit bull does not really belong to her it was on her front porch

Malek, the plaintiff and defendant were neighbors. Pulley v. Malek, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 1986). The defendant’s dog was hit by a car and unable to move on its own. Id. at 403. The defendant then called the plaintiff asking for a veterinarian’s phone number. Id. Plaintiff gave the number and came outside asking if he could help. Id. Plaintiff then picked up the dog and carried it into the defendant’s house, even though the defendant refused assistance. Id. Inside the defendant’s house, plaintiff again picked up the dog attempting to place it into the defendant’s car and the dog bit the plaintiff. Id. Ohio Court of Appeals, stated that there was no evidence of the plaintiff maliciously provoking the dog. Id. However, no part of the R.C. 955.28(b) requires evidence of malicious provocation, to establish the plaintiff’s conduct as tormenting. Id. at 404. Most Ohio courts define tormenting as conduct involving greater annoyance, usually resulting in physical pain. Id. at 405. The Supreme Court of Ohio applied this definition to the facts in Pulley, and concluded that a reasonable jury would find the picking up of the injured dog, sufficient for tormenting. Id.

Baker stated that the dog owner was very apologetic for the incident. Emergency services arrive at the location and advise Ms. Baker to seek medical attention but did not transport her to the hospital. Ms. Baker went to Mt. Carmel Urgent Care to address her wounds. On 06/01/17, Ms. Baker wound got infected and she had to return to Mt. Carmel West and The Ohio State University Medical Center to deal with the infection in her left hand. I explain to Ms. Baker and Mr. Moore the options they have available to them in regards to pursuing criminal charges against the dog owner. Ms. Baker and Mr. Moore did not want to pursue charges against the neighbors; they didn’t want to cause any issues. I asked Ms. Baker if she took pictures of her injuries, she stated she did. I provided my contact information for the pictures to be sent to my email address to attach to incident. I advised them that I would go to 1118 Obetz Road and talk to dog owner in regards to the incident and determine if the dog is current on dog license and

On 04/29/16 at 6:21pm, I was dispatched to an injury- possible dangerous or vicious dog animal at large. I arrived at 283 S. Skidmore St, talk to dog owner Mark Capehart. Mr. Capehart advised me that two kids came to his house and knocked on his door. His daughter answered the door, as she was talking to the kids; their dog charged pass her and bite victim 1 Kamora Stidoms and victim 2 Jahquez Lonzy. Both kids ran from the house. Kamora Stidoms was taken to Nationwide Children Hospital for her bite wounds. Jahquez Lonzy had minor injuries which did not require him to go to the hospital. I spoke to Kamora Stidoms and her mother, Vanilla Hunt, who wrote out a victim statement for her daughter due to her being a minor. Kamora Stidoms has a small puncture wound on the back of her left arm and scratches on the upper section of her arm.

Setting Lagoda aside, based on the little evidence in favor of Mr. Thompson, there still may not exist sufficient evidence to impose liability on Ms. Lewis pursuant to precedent set by Collier v Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004). In Collier, the appellate division ruled in favor of the defendant’s motion for summary judgement as they found the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants were aware of their dog’s vicious propensities.