Laserfiche WebLink
Mansfield Tanick : Cohen PA. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Joseph Langel <br />City Attorney - City of Lino Lakes <br />November 22, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />ordinance does not necessitate that the dog be destroyed, particularly under <br />these circumstances. <br />Equitable consideration ought to play a role in this determination. <br />Moreover, the term "shall" in this context is probably directory, rather than <br />mandatory. E.g., In re Discharge of Nelson, 2008 WL 2651155 (Minn. App. <br />2008) (unpublished) rev. den'd (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008). This is especially so <br />when the ordinance "contains no language that provides consequences ..." <br />Eolander & Sons v. Minneapolis, 488 N.W.2d 804, 809 -10 (Minn. App. 1992) <br />Aff d 502 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1983). <br />I have participated in several cases with dogs that have been deemed <br />"dangerous" and slated for execution. In none of those cases have the <br />authorities actually executed a dog, either for factual reasons, legal reasons, <br />practical reasons, or equitable considerations, or a combination of them. E.g. <br />Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 2010 WL 1850829 (Minn. App. 2010) <br />(unpublished). It is my understanding that Mr. Sawh is going to make <br />proposals that would ameliorate risks posed by the dog's continued living at his <br />family's home in a manner that should be acceptable to city officials and avert <br />the stain of unnecessary destruction of a beloved family pet. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />MHT :dt <br />Very t y yours, <br />MA I P , TANICK COHEN, P.A. <br />a1 ° . . ick <br />