Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 199 N.W.2d 435.
-
James M. Carlson, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton (In re Village of New Brighton Resolution 862), in which the appellant testified during district court proceedings that, “based on his 15 years’ experience in the property-development field, he did not believe the properties in question have received any special benefits.”
-
David Thompson, et al., Appellants,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Wilmmus Prop., Inc. v. Village of New Brighton , -38 ( Minn. 1972).
- Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, 359, (crediting the testimony of an assessed property 8 owner who “had an extensive background in real estate and industrial development”).
- David E. McNally Development Corp. v. City of Winona 686 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
David E. McNally Development Corp. v. City of Winona
686 N.W.2d 553
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, 359-60 , -38 (1972).
- Anderson v. City of Bemidji 295 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1980
-
Anderson v. City of Bemidji
295 N.W.2d 555
Minn. 1980
See, e. g., E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, Village of Vadnais Heights v. Board of Water Commissioners, 306 Minn. 234
- Appeal of Ewert v. City of Winthrop 278 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1979
-
Appeal of Ewert v. City of Winthrop
278 N.W.2d 545
Minn. 1979
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356 , ” In the instant case, the regularity of the assessment proceedings is not challenged.
- Buettner v. City of St. Cloud 277 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1979
-
Buettner v. City of St. Cloud
277 N.W.2d 199
Minn. 1979
Compare Nyquist v. Town Center, Crow Wing County, 312 Minn. 266 , : “This presumption of validity may only be rebutted by the taxpayer upon a clear showing that the assessment does not bear any reasonable relationship to the value of special benefits.” [Citing E. H. Willmus Prop., Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356 , ] with Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368 , : “Presumption [of validity may be overcome] * * * by introducing competent evidence that the assessmen
- Joint Independent School District No. 287 v. City of Brooklyn Park 256 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1977
- Continental Sales & Equipment Co. v. Town of Stuntz 257 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 1977
-
Continental Sales & Equipment Co. v. Town of Stuntz
257 N.W.2d 546
Minn. 1977
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, 361 , : “Three rules, applicable here, have developed in prior decisions of this court.
-
Joint Independent School District No. 287 v. City of Brooklyn Park
256 N.W.2d 512
Minn. 1977
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356
- Nyquist v. Town Center, Crow Wing County 251 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1977
-
Nyquist v. Town Center, Crow Wing County
251 N.W.2d 695
Minn. 1977
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356
- Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Village of Burnsville 245 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1976
-
Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Village of Burnsville
245 N.W.2d 445
Minn. 1976
See, E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, 363, note 3
- Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom 240 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1976
-
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom
240 N.W.2d 517
Minn. 1976
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356
- Hartle v. City of Glencoe 226 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1975
-
Hartle v. City of Glencoe
226 N.W.2d 914
Minn. 1975
E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356
- Gibbish v. Village of Burnsville 200 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1972
-
Gibbish v. Village of Burnsville
200 N.W.2d 310
Minn. 1972
Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 293 Minn. 356, 361 , we set forth the applicable rules: “* * * (i) Even though the procedure used in levying assessments is regular, the questions of whether the property assessed received any special benefit and whether the assessment made exceeds the special benefit received are open for review; (2)