Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331.

25 citing documents.

Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis , , 337 (Minn. 1978) ("[W]e presume that public officials are properly performing their duties when they make ...
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Walser Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Richfield 635 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Walser Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Richfield 635 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
we note that the city’s discretion is less than that used in condemnation proceedings because, in those cases, the existence of almost any evidence will support a finding of a public purpose.
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority v. Reiling 610 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-38 (Minn.1978) (explaining public purpose doctrine underlying judicial review of municipal development authority decisions).
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 609 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2000
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 609 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2000
Comstock & Davis, Inc. v. City of Eden Prairie 557 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Comstock & Davis, Inc. v. City of Eden Prairie 557 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(recognizing municipalities may expend public funds only in furtherance of public purpose); cf. City of Evansville v. Verplank Concrete & Supply, 400 N.E.2d 812, 816-18 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (holding financing of municipal parking garage was for public purpose, but garage itself was not for a public u
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(in determining whether particular expenditure serves public purpose, “ ‘public purpose’ should be broadly construed to comport with the changing conditions of modern life”).
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(emphasis added) (citing Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184 , ).
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
342 n. 11 (Minn.1978), we noted that the public bidding statute is restrictive and should not be extended to contracts not envisioned by the legislature.
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele 291 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1980
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele 291 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1980
we held that a public body’s decision that a project is in the public interest is presumed correct unless there is a showing of fraud or undue influence.
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 270 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1978
this court found a public purpose in expending public monies to induce private development in an urban development district, relying on numerous Minnesota cases which permitted such inducements, as follows: “ * * * We have gone so far as to approve the condemnation of land by a public authority and