Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sun Oil Company v. Village of New Hope, 220 N.W.2d 256.

38 citing documents.

Ali Alfureedy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Idyllwood Homeowners Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Horton, d at 595; (“When judicially reviewin g a legislative determination, the scope of review must necessarily be narrow.”).
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
The property owner also cites "substantial change to the neighborhood” and asks us to hold that the city's decision was invalid under Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
1 (including “recreation” among the legitimate objectives of zoning); In re Denial of Eller Media Company’s Applications, , 10 n. 7 (Minn. 2003) (explaining that “[gjoverning bodies have the right to meet the desires of their citizens for beauty and space — even in cities”); Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 337-38 , (upholding village’s denial of a rezoning petition “based upon a legislative determination to perpetuate its preexisting comprehensive zoning ordinance”).
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(reviewing challenge to comprehensive plan decision); cf. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334-35 , (reasoning that, where a city’s refusal to rezone was based on a comprehensive zoning ordinance, it was proper to attack the comprehensive ordinance as arbitrary and capricious).
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“When judicially reviewing a legislative determination, the scope of review must necessarily be narrow.” Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334-35 , -62 (1974) (petitioner seeking reclassification may show character of area is so changed that reclassification ought to be made).
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
citing Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Honn, d at 419 (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 335 , ).
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids 313 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1981
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids 313 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1981
See also Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326 , Beck v. City of St.
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, Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333 , Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 267 Minn. 155
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
When a municipal governing body adopts or amends a zoning ordinance its action will usually affect an open class of individuals, interests, or situations, so that the governing body is then acting in a legislative capacity, Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 *716 Minn. 326
Czech v. City of Blaine 253 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1977
Czech v. City of Blaine 253 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1977
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
ic welfare is a matter primarily for determination of the legislative body concerned * * * “Even where the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is debatable, or where there áre conflicting opinions as to the desirability of the restrictions.it imposes * * *, it is not the func *301 tion of the courts to interfere with the legislative discretion on such issues.” Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333 , Beck v. City of St.
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
*448 The appropriate scope of review of zoning cases was recently stated in Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326
Village of Medford v. Wilson 230 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1975
Village of Medford v. Wilson 230 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1975
The question is, does the evidence clearly establish the fact that the city authorities, in ordering the improvement, acted arbitrarily or fraudulently * * * ?” More recently, in Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326 , we held that when legislative determinations made by municipalities are judicially reviewed, the scope of review must necessarily be narrow.
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Holasek v. Village of Medina 226 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1975
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326 , Zylka v. City of Crystal, supra; Westling v. City of St.