Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 246 N.W.2d 455.

31 citing documents.

Jacob Schlichter, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
§ 340A.509 (2024) (authorizing local authorities to “impose further restrictions and regulations on the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages within its limits”), (stating that state law grants “broad discretion ” in determining whether to issue a liquor license), with Minn. Stat. § 342.22, subd.
Target Corporation, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Wajda v. City of Minneapolis
In the Matter of the Denial of Rental Dwelling Licenses to Compass Rose Real Estate, LLC, and North … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Denial of Rental Dwelling Licenses to Compass Rose Real Estate, LLC, and North … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 346, (reversing a license denial when it was based on a presumption that the female applicant did not have a “strong” enough personality).
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Boardwalk Bar & Grill, LLC, Relator v. East Grand Forks City Council Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A city council has “broad discretion” when determining whether to renew a liquor license, and this court’s scope of review “is a narrow one, which should be exercised most cautiously.” See Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
of Comm’rs, (holding that when the agency's decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption, the decision was arbitrary and capricious); Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343-44 , -58 (1976) (holding that the city's decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts).
Lam v. City of St. Paul 714 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lam v. City of St. Paul 714 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343 , (addressing the denial of a liquor license).
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul 466 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul 466 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Id.; see also Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
Bergmann v. City of Melrose 420 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bergmann v. City of Melrose 420 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
Kayo Oil Co. v. City of Hopkins 397 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kayo Oil Co. v. City of Hopkins 397 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Since the city council is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to issue or renew a liquor license, the scope of review of such a determination is a narrow one, which should be exercised “most cautiously.” Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Godfather, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 375 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anton's, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 375 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
Godfather, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 375 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
* * * Nevertheless * * * the licensing authorities must not act arbitrarily or capriciously and “[c]ourts will interfere to prevent an abuse of discretionary power; and will grant relief from unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent action of municipal authorities.” Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343 , quot *71 ing 2 E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 10.37 (3d ed. 1979).
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339 , cited by Plums, does not support their position either.
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul 329 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1983
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul 329 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1983
Sabes v. City of Minneapolis, 265 Minn. 166 , cf. Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339
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
See Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 343
Ruzich v. Township of Stuntz 295 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1980
Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of Minneapolis 264 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978
Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of Minneapolis 264 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978
In Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., we specifically noted, contrary to appellants’ assertion, that a city council is vested with “broad discretion” in its consideration of a liquor license application.
Polman v. City of Royalton 249 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1977
Polman v. City of Royalton 249 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1977
Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339 , 10 Dunnell, Dig.