Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Application of City of White Bear Lake, 247 N.W.2d 901.

24 citing documents.

C.O. v. Doe 757 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
C.O. v. Doe 757 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
Application of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150
All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund 732 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 2007
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
As this court has stated, “[T]he burden of proof generally rests on the one who seeks to show he is entitled to the benefits of a statutory provision.” In re Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150
In re the Retirement Benefits of Yetka 554 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re the Retirement Benefits of Yetka 554 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150
Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Municipal Board 497 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Municipal Board 497 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See In re Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 151 , (general rule in administrative proceedings is that burden of proof is on party seeking relief, benefits, or privilege).
Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 494 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 494 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See State v. City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150 , (applicant for relief, privilege, or the benefits of a statute generally has the burden of proof).
North Memorial Medical Center v. Minnesota Department of Health 423 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
North Memorial Medical Center v. Minnesota Department of Health 423 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
§ 105.45 (1982); Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake 297 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1980
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake 297 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1980
See State v. City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 289 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1980
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 289 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1980
Thus, this element cannot play a major role in determining whether A-2 is a “feasible and prudent alternative.” Nor does the frustration of city planning alleged in this case 7 constitute a “truly unusual factor.” As this court stated in Herbst v. City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 155 , “[t]he fact that the city has expended a substantial amount of money in preparation for an environmentally damaging project does not require that project’s construction.” In summary, the record contains sub
State Ex Rel. Skeie v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1979
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
See, State v. City of White Bear Lake, Minn.
Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst 256 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1977
Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst 256 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1977
Co., Minn., State v. City of White Bear Lake, Minn., St.