Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358.

28 citing documents.

Jacob Robuck, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Metro 500, d 358, 362 (Minn. 1973).
Mathew Davis, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
of Comm’ rs, (quotation omitted); see also Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park , 297 Minn. 294, 299, (alluding to “danger” of permitting local government body “after several months of thought to present reasons perhaps totally unrelated to the actual reasons for denying the permit” (quotation omitted)).
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
(citing Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 300 , ).
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 300
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
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 decision).
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 300
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
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
ation 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 broad discretionary action and an impermissibly arbitrary d
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
In Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , this court refused to rely on reasons for denial which apparently had some basis in the record, but were not formally articulated by the city council as reasons for denial.
Almquist v. Town of Marshan 245 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1976
Almquist v. Town of Marshan 245 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1976
Paul, 275 Minn. 440 , Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel, 296 Minn. 362 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294
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
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
rly line of said Lot 9, Block 1, Sjoberg Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for the said Hennepin County, and which lies Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 7.” 2 This standard of review has been consistently recognized in the following line of decisions: Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel, 296 Minn. 362 , Enright v. City of Bloomington, 295 Minn