Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 210 N.W.2d 416.

24 citing documents.

Explained Rosalie Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Council, -21 (Minn. 1973) (holding that disputed property met statutory requirement “because of unique circumstances not reflective of conditions general to the neighborhood”), overruled on other grounds, Arden Hills, d at 868 n.4.
Mike and Kristina Herbst, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Council, overruled on other grounds, Arden Hills, d at 865, and thus is “not limited to the purely physical condition of the land,” State ex rel.
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
In support of the application of this standard, the court of appeals cited Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 289-90 , , 868 n. 4 (Minn. 1979).
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 290-91 , -20 (1973)
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 293 , (affirming variances from setback requirements, parking requirements, and maximum number of apartment units), overruled, Arcadia Dev.
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 291 , overruled on other grounds, , 868 n. 4 (Minn.1979).
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 292 , (“substantial evidence in this case [demonstrates] that sufficient practical difficulties existed to justify” variances)
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 292 , (holding sufficient “practical difficulties” existed to justify area variance), overruled on other grounds, , 868 n. 4 (Minn.1979); Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 396-97 , (holding variance required
Township of Ottertail v. Perham Hospital District 438 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Township of Ottertail v. Perham Hospital District 438 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council, 306 Minn. 425, 430 , (quoting Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 290 , ).
Appeal of Kenney 374 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Appeal of Kenney 374 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285
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
See, e. g., Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285 , Golden v. City of St.
City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council 237 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1975
City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council 237 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1975
The most recent formulation of the extent of judicial review in such matters was contained in Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 290 , where this court stated: “With respect to decisions of municipal and other governmental bodies having the duty of making decisions involving judgment and discretion, this court has repeatedly said that it is not the province of the trial court to substitute its judgment for that of
Beck v. City of St. Paul 231 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1975
Beck v. City of St. Paul 231 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1975
conflicting opinions as to the desirability of the restrictions it imposes * * *, it is not the function of the courts to interfere with the legislative discretion on such issues.’ ” See, also, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 272 U. S. 365 , 47 S. Ct. 114 , 71 L. ed. 303 (1926); 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3 ed.) §§ 25.55, 25.67; Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285