Laserfiche WebLink
20 Minn.” ^S1 NORTH WE3TKUN UKPORn’R, 2J SFItlKSSUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTADECISIONS WITHOUT PUBUSHEI) OPINIONS <br />Apitcal from <br />Tllle <br />Ooekel <br />Number Dale DUtxmIUoo <br />llotsarl V. Sieve Turnbull Ma- <br />C9-90-385 4/30/90 Affirmed <br />Johnson V. l*ord Me lor Co...C4-90-4')4/18/90 Affinoed <br />johrison v. Morris ................C8-8!-26l4 4/18/90 Reversal <br />and Rc* <br />momlcJ <br />;osk V. Pioneer Enji. <br />oeering/Ponec. Inc..............Cl-90-11 4/19/90 Affirmed <br />Lapp* V. Regency Manor Kurv- <br />Ifawrwam ...................................• <br />4/13/90 Affircncd <br />Workers’ Competv <br />sjiion Cl. o( Ap­ <br />peals <br />Workers* Compen- <br />wit ion O. of Ap­ <br />peals <br />Tax a. <br />Kclle>\ J. <br />Workers' Compeii- <br />satioQ Cl. of Ap­ <br />peals <br />Workers* Coinpcn- <br />saliofi Ct. of Ap- <br />peals <br />riTY OF KI>1NA *. liUtHFU K.WJa w« (»«^»»CITY OF KDINA. UrsponJent,*.Koger II. DKEIlKIl, Appellant No. C7-«»-192«. <br />Court of Xpl'oab of MinnosoU. <br />April 21. im <br />Review DcnHxlJunc 15, IMO. <br />1. Conililutioool Low «=*W) .Mookipol CorpormlioM Culy orilinaoce U«»t probibil^ keepmc of animal lhal "by any noite dislu^ Ibe p.>aee ami Aoicl of persons in Ihe vtrmily dkl not provi<l« adequaie notice or ade«i«*l« <br />slniidanls to pervent arbilrao' eofore^l <br />and therefore violaled uue proce** of bw. <br />US.C.A. ConstAmendi. 5. M; M^A. <br />Const Art 1. S f. 1 <br />Syllabus by tks Court <br />City ordinance that prohibiUtI owning <br />an animal that "by any noise <br />Defendant was eonvicied in Uic Dis­ <br />trict Court Hennepin County, James D. <br />Rocers. J., of violaling city ordinanee pro- aninuu uv»* ------ . . . « <br />hibitine Uie keeping of an an.mal whkh of persons in Ihe newniy <br />"by anv nouse disturbs the peace and lurct jy ^ prorMc adeqoale notice or adequai* <br />of any* persons in the vicinity" and was to prerent arbitrary enfoie^l <br />assessed J30 fine, plus court costs. On tlierefore violales due proce» of law-SSS€SSCd #01/ line* piu:> vv J It I <br />appeal, the Court of A;>|ieab. Randall. J, <br />held thnt ordinance in question was uncon­ <br />stitutionally vague in that it dkl not provide <br />adequate notice or adequate sundards U» <br />prevent its arb.uary enforcement. <br />ReversetL <br />Hubert II. Humphrex. NI, Ally. Gen^St <br />Paul. Marshall Hslbcrg. David J. McGw. <br />Thomsen, Nybeck I aw Firm. Edutt. for <br />respoudenL <br />Steven D. DcRuylcr, Leonard. Street & <br />Oeinard. Minneapolis, for appellant. <br />Coiwnkred and decided by f^ANDALU <br />PJ, and FOLEY, and CARDERRINC. <br />L Consiitui’ion«l Law «^251.4 <br />Mufilclpel Corporalioni ^55k<2) <br />City onlinanoc mi»t meH. due pci>ccss « <br />sUiulanls of definiLencss under both Fed- JJ. <br />oral and Stiic Consliluiwns. U5C.A. <br />ConsLAmends. 5. U. M.S.A. Const Art 1. <br />§7- <br />2. Constitutional laiw «»251.1 <br />Monicipol Corporations •=*591(2) —n — - , , . <br />In order for city ordinance U> meet due p^ibiLs a persori from ke^^ <br />oroecss suorlards of definiteness, persons ^hkh by any noi« ^ <br />Sf^mon inUlligcncc must not be left to of pe«on, <br />guess at meaning of ordinance nor difte aiifues that the city <br />^ application. U-S.C.A. Lowt jue process of U«. We reverse. <br />FACTS <br />On August U. 1089.»» Edina oommunity <br />officer was dispalehed by the P®**^ <br />mcnl to answer a dliten'a complsml IW a <br />• •_____a ak^ Waaa»*JI JhC <br />OPINION <br />RANDALL. Judge. <br />Thk is an appeal from j^Knu^t <br />>591(2) appellant for violaling a city ordinance lhal <br />U> meet due pruhibiLs a peraoo from keeping <br />nersotis K« anv noise disturbs the <br />to itB ---- <br />Amends. 5. 14; M.S.A. Const Art 1. S “I. <br />a. Municipal Cori/oralions «»t22(4). <br />59112) <br />Where fundimcnUl rights were no a a^ * auten s oonn>»M*v •>••-» - <br />involved in vagueness challenge U> aly o^ |u»rking at the house of appelhnl <br />dinance. challenge had to be Upon reaching the houae. <br />light of defendant's actual [J,, ,,1 in his vehkie and from tbwl <br />fendanl had to Trove cnnsUlutional v 1 ^ ,p,*HanU dog <br />Uon beyond a rea-vinahle doubt L -. . - . leaving, Ihe offieer left a <br />ronsl.Amends 5. H; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1. hark, liei re *..........^