Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hawkins v. Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863.

29 citing documents.

EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. City Council, (explaining that the power to enact ordinances implies the power to repeal them, which can be done through the enactment of new ordinances, therefore implying that an ordinance does not end but remains in effect until it is replaced by another ordinance); d 863, 865 (Minn. 1957) (“Zoning ordinances have long been upheld as legitimate exercises of the police power as long as they conform to the usual limitations governing the exercise of that power.”) ; (“A city ordinance within
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Hawkins v. Talbot , 248 Minn. 549 , , 865 (1957) ("One limitation traditionally imposed on the right of a governmental body to enact zoning restrictions is that such restrictions must be subject to the vested property interests of lawful businesses and uses already established within the zoned district.").
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hawkins v. Talbot , 248 Minn. 549 , 551, , 865 (1957).
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 551, ).
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 551
County of Morrison v. Wheeler 722 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
County of Morrison v. Wheeler 722 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , (citing Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , ).
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix v. City of St. Louis Park 359 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix v. City of St. Louis Park 359 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 551
Hooper v. City of St. Paul 353 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Hooper v. City of St. Paul 353 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
As we held in County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , “[a] residential zoning ordinance may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming, but existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain”, citing Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This interpretation is supported by the holding in Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 553-54 , -67 (1957), where the court found that the employment of more efficient equipment did not extend an existing use because it was merely an improvement over the previous method and because it did not result in a change or addition in the nature and purpose of the original use.
Hawkinson v. County of Itasca 231 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1975
Hawkinson v. County of Itasca 231 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1975
Plaintiff cites Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , for the proposition that “geographic expansion within the original area is permissible.” That case, however, involved the continuing nonconforming use of a gravel pit.
County of Freeborn v. Claussen 203 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1972
County of Freeborn v. Claussen 203 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1972
Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka 162 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1968
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka 162 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1968
See, Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , 80 N. W. (2d) 863 .
Golden v. City of St. Louis Park 122 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1963
Golden v. City of St. Louis Park 122 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1963
It is well settled that actions taken by a municipality under municipal zoning ordinances must bear some relationship to public health, safety, or welfare, Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , 80 N. W. (2d) 863 ; Gunderson v. Anderson, 190 Minn. 245 , ; and that such actions will not be upheld where it is established that they are arbitrary or discriminatory as applied to a particular situation.
Pearce v. Village of Edina 118 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1962
Pearce v. Village of Edina 118 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1962
Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , 80 N. W. (2d) 863 ; Kiges v. City of St.