Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 195 N.W.2d 558.

33 citing documents.

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , see also Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , (denying summary judgment for landowner, but singularly because the county showed a genuine issue on one of two grounds stated for its de
City of Duluth v. State 390 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1986
City of Duluth v. State 390 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1986
See Holasek v. Village of Medina, 303 Minn. 240 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374
TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope 388 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope 388 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 379
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 , Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
Minnesota addressed the concept in Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , but the ordinance at issue defined planned developments as a conditional use and the court treated the case as involving a "special use" permit.
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Investments, Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374
State Ex Rel. Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1978
State Ex Rel. Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1978
See, also, Holasek v. Village of Medina, 303 Minn. 240 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374
Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton 268 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1978
Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton 268 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1978
v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 196 , is that the application may not be denied “arbitrarily” but that “the administering body, be it the council itself or a planning commission to which power to act is delegated, has broad discretionary power to deny an application for a special use permit * * * Subsequent cases such as Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , and Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , in determining the boundary between permissibly
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
2 In Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington; 292 Minn. 374 , this court held that a trial court erred, in sustaining the city council’s denial of a conditional-use permit for a shopping center where the court had based its .findings on reasons not articulated by the city council.
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294
O'Neil v. Broadbent 226 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1975
O'Neil v. Broadbent 226 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1975
Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , Westling v. City of St.
Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee 226 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1975
Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee 226 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1975
g court when the evidence presented at the hearing before the municipal governing body and the reviewing court establishes that the requested use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health or safety or the general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole.” 2 In the case of Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 379 , this court stated that the burden of proof required to obtain a conditional-use
National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights 222 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1974
National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights 222 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1974
Paul, 291 Minn. 548 , Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374
Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park 211 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1973
Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park 211 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1973
Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192
Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel 208 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1973
Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel 208 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1973
Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 392
Hay v. Township of Grow, Anoka County 206 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1973
Hay v. Township of Grow, Anoka County 206 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1973
Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 , Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374