Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 244 N.W.2d 482.

44 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of Andrew Wheeler for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
However, “[i]f the decision-making body does not state reasons contemporaneously with its action, its decision will be prima facia arbitrary, and it will bear the burden of persuading the reviewing court that the facts and circumstances before it gave rise to legally sufficient reasons for denial.” Corwine v. Crow Wing County , 11 overruled on other grounds by Nw.
Thomas Behrends, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nathan J. Knoernschild v. Dennis Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
Connaughty v. Winona County Board of Commissioners 849 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Connaughty v. Winona County Board of Commissioners 849 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of Crow Wing, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , overruled on other grounds by Nw.
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
It is a proceeding designed to determine if issues of fact exist.” Convine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 361
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
*834 See Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 361
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
2 See Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , (ruling that individuals challenging CUPs have the burden “to establish the alleged failures [of the proposal to meet county standards] and show an abuse of discretion”).
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 Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , (“When a use permit is approved, the decision-making body is always implicitly giving the same reason - all requirements for the issuance of the permit have been met.”).
Conlin v. City of Saint Paul 605 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 2000
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
If the decision-making body does not state reasons contemporaneously with its action, its decision will be prima facie arbitrary, and it will bear the burden of persuading the reviewing court that the facts and circumstances before it gave rise to legally sufficient reasons for denial or revocation.” Cor wine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352
Carter v. Olmsted County Housing 574 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Carter v. Olmsted County Housing 574 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
White Bear, d at 742 n. 5 (citing Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , ).
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 361 , (noting status as area residents is sufficient “to establish competency and personal knowledge” of many alleged facts), St.
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 , see also Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , (denying summary judgment for landowner, but singularly because the county showed a genuine issue on one of two grounds stated for its decision).
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haen v. Renville County Board of Commissioners 495 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Corwine v. County of Crow Wing, 309 Minn. 345, 352
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 361
Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 395 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis 395 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Convine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
In Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , we said, "If the decision-making body does not state rea *743 sons contemporaneously with its action, its decision will be prima facie arbitrary, and it will bear the burden of persuading the reviewing court that the facts and circumstances before it gave rise to legally sufficient r
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
In the present posture of this case, where the court is not trying issues of fact but only determining if issues of fact exist, Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , it appears to us that whether the solicitation for Short’s bid was an offer or only an invitation to make an offer is a question of fact that cannot be decided summarily.
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
Louis Park, 266 Minn. 46 , [1963], and Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , [1976]), no doubt can remain in the wake of this court’s
State Ex Rel. Skeie v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1979
Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton 268 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1978
Explained Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton 268 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1978
In Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345, 352 , we explained how a statement of reasons affected the scope of judicial review to determine whether the denial was arbitrary: “* * * Since the court is reviewing the decision of another body, it should, of course, confine itself at all times to the facts and circumstances developed be
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178 , Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , MPIRG v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, Minn.