Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Czech v. City of Blaine, 253 N.W.2d 272.

28 citing documents.

Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 536-39 , -74 (1977).
In Re the June 9, 2000 Fence Viewing Petition of Bailey 626 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the June 9, 2000 Fence Viewing Petition of Bailey 626 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ermining whether a statute results in an unconstitutional taking when applied to a specific piece of property, the controlling test requires the landowner to “demonstrate that he had been deprived, through governmental action or inaction, of all the reasonable uses of his land.” County of Pine v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, , 630 n. 4 (1979) (quoting Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539 , ).
In Re the Application of Merritt 537 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Application of Merritt 537 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
at 414 ; State, by Rochester Ass’n -89 (Minn.1978); Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535 , (denial of owner’s petition for rezoning constituted a taking where the physical characteristics of the property made it unsuitable for any use other than the owner’s proposed use).
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535 , -75 (1977).
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 378 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 378 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In order to establish an unconstitutional taking, a landowner must show that the government’s action or inaction has deprived him of “ ‘all the reasonable uses of his land.’ ” (quoting Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535 , ).
Hedlund v. City of Maplewood 366 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedlund v. City of Maplewood 366 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535 , (citations omitted).
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Erickson 285 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1979
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Erickson 285 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1979
The burden of proof is on the person challenging the government’s action to establish that there is an unconstitutional taking, Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Scott, supra; Maher v. City of New Orleans, supra, or that he has been deprived of all reasonable uses of his land, e. g., Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539
County of Ramsey v. Stevens 283 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
County of Ramsey v. Stevens 283 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 283 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1979
Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 283 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1979
As respects the impact of the regulation upon the land in question, in Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539 , we recently held that: “ « * * por there to be an unconstitutional taking a landowner must demonstrate that he has been deprived, through governmental action or inaction, of all the reasonable uses of his land.
County of Pine v. State, Department of Natural Resources 280 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1979
County of Pine v. State, Department of Natural Resources 280 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1979
We feel compelled to point out the controlling test for this state: “ * * * To establish ‘an unconstitutional taking a landowner must demonstrate that he had been deprived, through governmental action or inaction, of all the reasonable uses of his land.’ Czech v. City of Blaine, Minn.
Holaway v. City of Pipestone 269 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1978
Holaway v. City of Pipestone 269 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1978
To establish “an unconstitutional taking a landowner must demonstrate that he had been deprived, through governmental action or inaction, of all the reasonable uses of his land.” Czech v. City of Blaine, Minn.