Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hay v. Township of Grow, Anoka County, 206 N.W.2d 19.

57 citing documents.

Steven W. Hill, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Cf. Hay v. Township of Grow , d 19, 22 (Minn. 1973) (stating that, when a z oning ordinance specifies the standards that must be applied in determining whether to grant a conditional use permit, and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law).
In the Matter of the Application of Park Rapids Clay Dusters, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, the standards referred to in RDNT and Hay v. Township of Grow , —the case on which RDNT relies—were the standards for granting a conditional-use permit, not the standards for determining what uses were conditional uses.
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 6 , -23 (1973).
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 656 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 656 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 337 , Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5 , Good Value Homes, d at 348 ; see also Laurie Reynolds, Local Subdivision Regulation: Formulaic Constraints in an Age of Discretion, 24 Ga.
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
See Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 6-7 , (absence of factual basis for conclusions deprives the reasons of value).
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 537 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 537 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
of the United States Constitution require that “one applicant not be preferred over another for reasons unexpressed or unrelated to the health, welfare, or safety of the community or any other particular and permissible standards or conditions imposed by the relevant zoning ordinances.” (quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 8 , ).
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , 7 n. 3, , 23 n. 3 (1973).
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
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5 , Scott County Lumber, d at 727 .
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
[citing Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 8 , ).
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The Minnesota Supreme Court in Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , found that the township’s decision was arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and ordered that a special use permit be issued.
Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5
Good Value Homes, Inc. v. City of Eagan 410 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Good Value Homes, Inc. v. City of Eagan 410 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ourt that Odell provides the applicable law: When a ‘subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance.’ National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 337 , (quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5 , ).
In Re the Variance Request of Johnson 404 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Variance Request of Johnson 404 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 8 , ).
Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
* * * As we made clear in Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , the equal protection clauses of the Minnesota Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment * * * require that “one applicant not be preferred over another for reasons unexpressed or unrelated to the health, welfare, or safety of the community or any other particular and permissible standards or
Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 395 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 395 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 378 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 378 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Hay v. Township of Grow, Anoka County, 296 Minn. 1 , the city clearly discriminated between special use permit applicants.
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
In Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: It is now settled that where a'zoning ordinance specifies standards to apply in determining whether to grant a special-use permit and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, a denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law.
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 337 , (quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 294 Minn. 1, 5 , ).
Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake 310 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1981
Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake 310 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1981
d at 869 ; Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 7-8 , -24 (1973).
C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of Shoreview 304 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of Shoreview 304 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
As we made clear in Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , the equal protection clauses of the Minnesota Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution require that “one applicant not be preferred over another for reasons unexpressed or unrelated to the health, welfare, or safety of the community or any other particular
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
See, e. g., Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , Enright v. City of Bloomington, 295 Minn. 186 , Twin City Red Barn, Inc. v. City of St.
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
Lafayette Land Co. v. Village of Tonka Bay 234 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1975
Lafayette Land Co. v. Village of Tonka Bay 234 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1975
Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1 , cited by the petitioner, involved the discriminatory granting and withholding of special-use permits affecting parties who were identically situated.
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 , Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1
Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee 226 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1975