Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Continental Sales & Equipment Co. v. Town of Stuntz, 257 N.W.2d 546.

31 citing documents.

Lana Schulz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns 710 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 2006
Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns 710 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 2006
(quoting Land O’Lakes Dairy Co. v. Sebeka Village, 225 Minn. 540, 548 , ).
Eagle Creek Townhomes, LLP v. City of Shakopee 614 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Eagle Creek Townhomes, LLP v. City of Shakopee 614 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
v. Town of Stuntz, ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
(internal citations omitted).
BFW CO. v. County of Ramsey 566 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1997
BFW CO. v. County of Ramsey 566 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1997
(quoting Land O’ Lakes Dairy Co. v. Village of Sebeka, 225 Minn. 540, 548 , ).
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
see also, Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 102 , (assessment affirmed where record did not establish it was “without integrity and faithful consideration by the municipal authorities or that it resulted from the adoption of inapplicable rules of law”).
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmidt v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 460 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Thofson v. Redex Industries, Inc. 433 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Thofson v. Redex Industries, Inc. 433 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Continental Sales & (“the mere allegation of a pri-ma facie case in the pleadings is not sufficient to raise a material issue of fact for trial”); see also O’Neil v. Kelly, 307 Minn. 498, 499 , (the adverse party “may not rely on the possibility that he will be able to develop evidence at trial
Higher Education Assistance Foundation v. Singh 416 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Higher Education Assistance Foundation v. Singh 416 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
BIXLER BY BIXLER v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 376 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1985
BIXLER BY BIXLER v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 376 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1985
Sievert v. City of Lakefield 319 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
Sievert v. City of Lakefield 319 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
2 It provided, as does the current version, that “[a]ll objections to the assessment shall be deemed waived unless presented on such appeal.” In Continental Sales & we held that, despite the above-quoted language, an alternative remedy was provided by Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (1976) governing objections and defenses to payment of real estate taxes.
Anderson v. City of Bemidji 295 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1980
Anderson v. City of Bemidji 295 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1980
Continental Sales & Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. at 97 , d at 818 ; Qvale v. City of Willmar, 223 Minn. at 58 , d at 704 ; State ex rel.
Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Village of Burnsville 287 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1979
Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Village of Burnsville 287 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1979
However, in Continental Sales & we decided that taxpayers could challenge a special assessment under Minn.St.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by