Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 240 N.W.2d 517.

71 citing documents.

James M. Carlson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that a city’s authority to impose a special assessment is subject to three conditions: “(a) The land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed, (b) the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property, and (c) the assessment may not exceed the special benefit.” see also First Baptist Church, d at 359 (“The amount of the special benefit is determined by the increase in the market value of the property attributable to
Trails Truck & Travel Plaza, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Aspengren, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom
David Thompson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom
Father John Dee Czaplewski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Carson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom , 307 Minn. 368, 369, 3 (1976).
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A “[s]pecial benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the land owing to the improvement.” Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. 6 City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
CLino LLC v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gerald L. Rehbein v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gerald L. Rehbein v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
CLino LLC v. City of Lino Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, ).
Archie J. Pavek, Trustee of the Archie J. Pavek Revocable Trust v. City of Prior Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Archie J. Pavek, Trustee of the Archie J. Pavek Revocable Trust v. City of Prior Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlson- 4 Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
Prior Lake Mini Storage, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prior Lake Mini Storage, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, ).
American Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis 802 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
American Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis 802 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 807 Minn. 368 , 370
David E. McNally Development Corp. v. City of Winona 686 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
David E. McNally Development Corp. v. City of Winona 686 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Carlsoiir-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 370 , (stating that property owner may challenge assessment by introducing evidence that amount of assessment exceeds benefit to property).
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Peter, (citing Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369 , ).
Johnson v. City of Eagan 584 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1998
Johnson v. City of Eagan 584 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1998
443 (1898); Buettner, d at 202 ; Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368
EHW PROPERTIES v. City of Eagan 503 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
EHW PROPERTIES v. City of Eagan 503 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Window,, 307 Minn. 368, 369
DeSutter v. Township of Helena 489 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
DeSutter v. Township of Helena 489 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Appellant’s citation of Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368 , to argue ”[s]pecial benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the land owing to the improvement," is misplaced.
Special Assessment Appeals of County of Ramsey v. Town of White Bear 469 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Special Assessment Appeals of County of Ramsey v. Town of White Bear 469 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
Blankenburg v. City of Northfield 462 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Blankenburg v. City of Northfield 462 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 373
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
of Minn., Inc. v. Lybeck, 309 Minn. 128, 133 , Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 374 , (action challenging assessment “will accrue, if at all, only when the new system is constructed and appellant actually loses customers”).
Rhodenbaugh v. City of Bayport 450 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rhodenbaugh v. City of Bayport 450 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lakes, see also Joint Independent School District No. 287 v. City of Brooklyn Park, (difference in market value should be calculated by determining “what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been constructed.”) (quoting Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369 , ).
Schumacher v. City of Excelsior 427 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1988
Schumacher v. City of Excelsior 427 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1988
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369
Preserve Ass'n v. City of Eden Prairie 421 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Preserve Ass'n v. City of Eden Prairie 421 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 373
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake 414 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake 414 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The standard by which this court reviews the trial court’s determination of a special assessment is stated in Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Window,, 307 Minn. 368, 373
Northwest Petroleum Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Economic Security 402 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lunderberg v. City of St. Peter 398 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lunderberg v. City of St. Peter 398 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The standard for this court in reviewing a district court’s determination of a special assessment is stated in Carlson- *583 Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 373 , : The scope of our review is a careful examination of the record to ascertain whether the evidence as a whole fairly supports the findings of the district court and whether these in turn support its conclusions of law and judgment.
Holden v. City of Eagan 393 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by