Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206.

52 citing documents.

Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
(“Plaintiff cannot successfully challenge this ordinance as unconstitutional on its face unless it would be unconstitutional as applied to the property interests of every billboard owner.”).
Ellis Olkon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka , ).
Metropolitan Airports Commission v. Noble 763 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
Metropolitan Airports Commission v. Noble 763 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 503 , (quoting In re Assessment for Widening Third Street, 176 Minn. 389, 390 , 223 N.W.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Lambrecht 663 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2003
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Lambrecht 663 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2003
Co. of Minnesota, Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 503
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 499 , (holding that the fact that the billboard regulation at issue reflected a desire to achieve aesthetic ends does not invalidate an otherwise valid ordi *542 nance); Naegele Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of Durham, 844 F.2d 172 , 174 (4th Cir.1988) (holding that aesthetic considerations
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 501, 503 , 215 (1968) (identifying ordinance establishing amortization period as legislative device and stating power to enact “this type of zoning requirement” is implied); DI MA Corp. v. City of St.
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 560 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1997
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 560 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1997
CONDEMNATION BY HOUS. & REDEV. v. Suh 553 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
CONDEMNATION BY HOUS. & REDEV. v. Suh 553 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 503
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 548 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan 548 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Naegele Outdoor Advertising v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492 , the supreme court upheld a municipality’s right to eliminate nonconforming land uses.
Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 494
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
at 599 (tenant is not entitled to compensation where lease contains clause for automatic termination of lease upon a taking); Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 503 , (if lease terminates upon condemnation of property, either automatically or at option of lessor, lessee is entitled to no compensation for loss of his leasehold interest); Korengold v. City of Minneapolis (In re Site for Library), 254 Minn. 358, 363 , (lessee
City of Rochester v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 431 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
City of Rochester v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 431 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See In re Site for Library, Korengold v. City of Minneapolis, 254 Minn. 358 , (automatic termination clause in lease bars lessee from participating in condemnation award; this is the general rule not only in Minnesota but in a majority of other state jurisdictions); Naegle Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492 , (automatic termination clause or termination at option of lessor upon condemnation bars lessee from participating in condemnation award, but where
Matter of Minneapolis Com. Dev. Agency 417 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Matter of Minneapolis Com. Dev. Agency 417 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minnesota v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 502
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492 , ).
State ex rel. Humphrey v. Kouri 415 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State ex rel. Humphrey v. Kouri 415 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 502 , (“[ujnless the billboards have become a part of the *414 realty so that title to them would pass to the lessor at the end of the lease — which the evidence here expressly negates — , the lessee is entitled to no, compensation for the cost of their removal.”); Creative Displays v. Sout
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Card 413 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Card 413 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 503 , (citing In re Site for Library in City of Minneapolis, 254 Minn. 358 , In re Third Street Improvement in City of St.
City of Bemidji v. Beighley 410 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Bemidji v. Beighley 410 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 494 , (citation omitted).
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 501
White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake 324 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1982
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton 323 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1982
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton 323 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1982
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 499
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 498
Application of Atkinson 291 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1980
Application of Atkinson 291 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1980
County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96 , Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492
County of Pine v. State, Department of Natural Resources 280 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1979
County of Pine v. State, Department of Natural Resources 280 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1979
In Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492 , this court held valid a zoning ordinance phasing out billboards although aesthetic considerations were a significant factor motivating enactment of the ordinance, because the ordinance was reasonably related to promoting the general welfare and other traditional zoning objectives.
County of Hennepin v. Holt 207 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1973
County of Hennepin v. Holt 207 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1973
As we construe the quoted clause of the lease, its meaning was that in the event *172 of the city’s appropriating the whole of the demised premises the lessee’s share in the damages was gone.” See, also, Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492
County of Freeborn v. Claussen 203 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1972
County of Freeborn v. Claussen 203 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1972
Naegele Outdoor Advertising *101 Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492
Klicker v. State 197 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1972
Klicker v. State 197 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1972
In Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492 , this court upheld the validity of a zoning ordinance requiring removal of nonconforming signs within a 3-year period.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by