Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885.

57 citing documents.

Ali Alfureedy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” State by Rochester Ass’n see also 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 37, art. 6, § 7 (listing these zoning purposes).
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
at 574 ; see also State by Rochester Ass’n
Pawn America Minnesota, LLC v. City of St. Louis Park 787 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2010
Pawn America Minnesota, LLC v. City of St. Louis Park 787 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2010
See State, Almquist , 308 Minn, at 63, 65, d at 825-26 .
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
-15 (Minn.1981) (" 'As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.’ ” (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n )); (stating that the failure of a city to advance any rationale for not following its comprehensive plan is strong evidence of arbitrary action).
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Spot zoning” applies to “zoning changes, typically limited to small plots of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district.” Rochester Ass’n
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
at 414-15 (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n ).
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
See, e.g., id.; State, by Rochester Ass’n Beck v. City of St.
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of … 664 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
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 State by Rochester Ass’n
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The challenger must show that a zoning classification is “unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” State, by Rochester Ass’n
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See State by Rochester Ass’n (holding ordinance should be upheld unless “the classification is unsupported by any rational basis”) (emphasis added).
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
tance Compensation Bd., (Anderson, J., concurring specially); (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Rochester Ass’n (greater scrutiny required entity to support findings with “substantial evidence”).
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State by Rochester Ass’n
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” -15 (Minn.1981) (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n ).
2600 University Inn, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 556 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
2600 University Inn, LLC v. City of Minneapolis 556 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State, by Rochester Ass’n
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
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State by Rochester Ass’n
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(quoting State, by Rochester Ass’n ).
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-15 (Minn.1981) (quoting State, by Rochester Ass’n ).
St. Croix Development, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley 446 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Croix Development, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley 446 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson, d at 905 citing State
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
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State, (zoning upheld unless opponents prove classification unsupported by any rational basis).
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
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Curtis Oil v. City of North Branch 364 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985