DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 231 N.W.2d 279.

28 citing documents.

  • Independent School District No. 281, Robbinsdale, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Wermager, 716 F.2d at 1215
  • Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Similarly, in Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, the supreme court held that the property owner could continue “the precise business in which he was engaged” before the new zoning ordinance—a “small recreati onal-commercial business on his lakeshore lots.”
  • 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
    Hawkinson v. County of Itasca , 304 Minn. 367 , , 283 (1975).
  • Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
  • Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 781 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2010
    at 294-95 (applying vested rights doctrine to conclude no vested right existed in a case in which a new law prevented a developer from acquiring land financing that was previously available at the time the land was purchased); Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 369 , (applying vested rights doctrine to conclude portions of a recreational-commercial business development that had sufficiently progressed were not subject to new zoning laws that limit the previously unzoned lots- to resid
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Ridge-wood, d at 294 ; see also Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367
  • 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
    Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 376-77 , Kiges v. City of St.
  • Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
  • Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
    See, e.g., Ridgewood, d at 292 (explaining that extensive obligations or expenses in reliance on prior government position are necessary for zoning estoppel); Hawkinson v. Itasca County, 304 Minn. 367, 376 , (holding that expenditures associated with the acquisition of the property, the removal of trees, the grading of the land and excavation created no vested right where unzoned property was later zoned residential).
  • 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
    2 (1998) (board may adopt ordinances to “reduce the number or extent of and provide for the gradual elimination of nonconformities”); see also Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 373 , (approving of “well-established rule that nonconforming uses are to be restricted in a way which will be conducive to their ultimately being phased out”) (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
    See, Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn, 367, 373
  • Dege v. City of Maplewood 416 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Dege v. City of Maplewood 416 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 374-77 , -84 (1975).
  • Haugen v. Peterson 400 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1987
  • Haugen v. Peterson 400 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1987
    Paul, 240 Minn. 522 , and Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367 , for the position that a plaintiff must demonstrate substantial progress in development or construction before a vested right accrues and the plaintiff can block the government’s rezoning of the property involved.
  • Jasaka Co. v. City of St. Paul 309 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1981
  • Followed Jasaka Co. v. City of St. Paul 309 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1981
    and Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367
  • City of St. Paul v. Rein Recreation, Inc. 298 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1980
  • City of St. Paul v. Rein Recreation, Inc. 298 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1980
    The existence of Rein’s vested right “ ‘does not mean that he can enlarge the [planned] building or change it in any way,’ ” but only that he “may proceed to finish the construction of this building according to [existing] plans.” Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 371-72 , -82 (1975).
  • Ridgewood Development Co. v. State 294 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1980
  • Ridgewood Development Co. v. State 294 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1980
    Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 372-73 , Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 261 , 53 Cal.Rptr.
  • Almquist v. Town of Marshan 245 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1976
  • Almquist v. Town of Marshan 245 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1976
    The second issue, which was not reached by the trial court, is whether, as applied to this landowner, the moratorium was valid or whether its effect on him had such harsh and unjust consequences as to constitute “substantial prejudice” within the meaning of Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367 , which would require either that the moratorium not be applied to this landowner or, if applied, that he be compensated for any damages which result to him.