DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N.W.2d 323.

62 citing documents.

  • Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    her, to further the public policy interests underlying compre hensive zoning plans, the law disfavors the expansion or enlargement of pre-existing nonconforming uses and instead favors the gradual elimination of such uses through obsolescence, e xhaustion, or destruction.” Northgate Homes, Inc. v. City of Dayton , 126 F.3d 1095, 1100 (8 th Cir. 1997) ().
  • Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    County of Freeborn v. Claussen , 295 Minn. 96 , , 325 (1972).
  • Ellis Olkon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (citing Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka , ).
  • Basim Sabri, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “[A] local government ‘is not required’ to permit the expansion of such nonconformities.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen , 295 Minn. 96, 99, ).
  • Brian Winczewski, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Although the county may constitutionally prohibit the creation of nonconforming uses, existing nonconforming uses “must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • Eureka Township, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99, (“A residential zoning ordinance may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming, but existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain.”).
  • County of Isanti, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    v. Claussen , 295 Minn. 96, 99 , (noting that zoning ordinance may prohibit the creation, 6 expansion, or enlargement of nonconforming uses, “but existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain”).
  • White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
  • White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
    of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , ); see also Hooper v. City of St.
  • Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, *44 99 , see also Krummenacher, d at 726 .
  • KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
  • KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
    We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance “may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • 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
    County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , (citing Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 , ).
  • Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Pomrenke v. Commissioner of Commerce 677 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100-01
  • Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    See County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 98 , (landowner who failed to timely appeal denial of petition to rezone could raise constitutional issues in defending enforcement action brought by county); accord County of Barry v. Edmonds, 25 Mich.App.
  • Buss v. Johnson 624 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Buss v. Johnson 624 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Freeborn County v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • 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
    To prove an ordinance is unreasonable, a complaining party must show that it “has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100 , ).
  • Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids 559 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids 559 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    To prove an ordinance is unreasonable, a complaining party must show that it “has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100 , ).
  • SLS PARTNERSHIP v. City of Apple Valley 511 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1994
  • SLS PARTNERSHIP v. City of Apple Valley 511 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1994
    We have previously observed that a municipality need not allow the expansion or enlargement of preexisting nonconforming uses and that the “public policy behind that doctrine is to increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • County of Lake v. Courtney 451 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • County of Lake v. Courtney 451 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    To prove that an ordinance is unreasonable, the defendant must show that the ordinance “has no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100 , (citation omitted).
  • Tuckner v. Township of May 419 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Tuckner v. Township of May 419 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 102
  • Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
  • Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
    County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96
  • 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
    An ordinance may constitutionally prohibit the creation of nonconforming uses, but “existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • E.T.O., Inc. v. Town of Marion 361 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Apple Valley Red-E-Mix v. City of St. Louis Park 359 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Apple Valley Red-E-Mix v. City of St. Louis Park 359 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 551
  • Hooper v. City of St. Paul 353 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
  • Hooper v. City of St. Paul 353 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
    As we held in County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 , “[a] residential zoning ordinance may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming, but existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain”, citing Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549
  • Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    onconforming “building or structure shall not be added to or enlarged in any manner unless such additions * * * are made so to bring said building or structure into conformity with * * * this ordinance.” “[CJonstruction of a building where none existed before constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming use in the same manner as an addition to an existing building.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 100
  • State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
    We have recognized that such “nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain.” County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99
  • 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