2. Which trial court issued the initial decision in this case? Did the trial court rule in favor of the injured party or the dog-owners?

3. What is the name of the dog in the heart of this legal dispute?

4. Describe the facts and circumstances that caused the dog bite to occur.

5. This legal dispute centered around a single word of the dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. Which of the words of the statute does the outcome of this case depend on? How do the dog-owners want the court to interpret the word?

6. The court utilizes thede novostandard in this case because it involves the interpretation of a statute. Look up the termde novo reviewin a legal dictionary and provide the definition.

266 Mich.App. 216 Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Kathleen BRANS and Fred Brans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John EXTROM and Barbara Extrom, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 251934. | Submitted March 8, 2005, at Detroit. | Decided May 3, 2005, at 9:15 a.m. | Released for Publication July 5, 2005