Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 178 N.W.2d 215.

28 citing documents.

Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
For instance, in another early discretionary-function exception case, we appeared to take judicial notice that a municipal permitting decision involved policymaking where the meaning of a zoning ordinance was doubtful.
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(granting judgment for city on appeal, reasoning that a Minneapolis city employee’s act in “issuing the building permit in a doubtful case involved an exercise of discretion” because the employee “had to make a judgment as to whether plans submitted in support of the application for the permit co
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
did not have discretion to approve permits in clear violation of the law”); cf. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287, 289, (stating that “[i]f the proposed use authorized by the building permit was clearly illegal, .
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The court, citing Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , noted that “city employees who approved the permit did not have discretion to approve permits in clear violation of the law,” and that in such situations the “permit issuee would be charged with knowledge of the law regulating the granting of building permits.” Snyder, d at 787 .
Christensen v. Mower County 587 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Christensen v. Mower County 587 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
6 (1996); see also Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287, 288-89 , (city immune from claim arising from performance of, or failure to perform, a discretionary function).
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287, 289
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287, 288 , (“The act [of issuing a building permit] involved an exercise of discretion in the sense that the city’s employee had to make a judgment as to whether plans submitted * * * constituted a permissible use of the property.”).
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287, 288 , (employee issuing building permit exercised discretion in determining whether building plans constituted a permissible use of property); Masonick v. J.P.
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , the supreme court held that the issuance of a building permit was a protected discretionary function.
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
3 In Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , we considered a question similar to the one presented here.
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 422 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 422 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, the City argues that the issuance of a building permit in this case was a discretionary act under a similar case, Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287
Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
See Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , (issuance of permit a discretionary municipal function).
McGuire v. Hennessy 193 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1971
McGuire v. Hennessy 193 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1971
1 Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, 274 Minn. 76 , Holsman v. Village of Bigfork, 284 Minn. 460 , Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , Sorenson v. Minneapolis-St.
Almich v. Independent School District No. 393 190 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
Almich v. Independent School District No. 393 190 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
Hirth v. Village of Long Prairie, supra; Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 287 Minn. 287 , Holsman v. Village of Bigfork, 284 Minn. 460 , White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363 , Jensen v. Downtown Auto Park, Inc. 289 Minn. 436