Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 125 N.W.2d 846.

29 citing documents.

Kevin S. Carpenter, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Thomas Tulien, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard T. Jellinger, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 846, 850 n.5 (Minn. 1964) ; Eagle Lake v. Becker County , ; Berndt v. County of Crow Wing , Nos. A05 -1381, A05 -1409, 2006 WL 6 1073196 (Minn. App. April 25, 2016 ).
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka 768 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka 768 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 226
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
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 227
Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 675 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 675 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 227
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 226 , ).
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 227-28 , (holding that city’s denial of variance from sign-standards ordinance was arbitrary and capricious); Rostamkhani v. City of St.
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 228 , (holding that city’s denial of variance from sign-standards ordinance was arbitrary and capricious); Rowell, d at 922-23 (affirming variance from setback requirements).
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 225
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 226
Miller v. Foley 317 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
Miller v. Foley 317 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington , 267 Minn. 221
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
We stated in Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 226 , that “[i]f the reasonableness of the action of the city council is at least doubtful, or fairly debata *608 ble, a court will not interject its own conclusions as to more preferable actions.” In Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 93 , quoted in Arca
Dedering v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1976
Dedering v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1976
See, Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221
City of Hutchinson v. Otto 235 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1975
City of Hutchinson v. Otto 235 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1975
1 The general principles are well stated in Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221