Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865.
-
Kottschade v. City of Rochester
537 N.W.2d 301
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
uses of the Minnesota Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution require that “one applicant not be preferred over another for reasons unexpressed or unrelated to the health, welfare, or safety of the community or any other particular and permissible standards or conditions imposed by the relevant zoning ordinances.” (quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 8 , ).
- Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
-
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis
502 N.W.2d 203
Minn. 1993
[citing Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 8 , ).
- 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
- Northern States Power Co. v. Blue Earth County 473 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Northern States Power Co. v. Blue Earth County 473 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- 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
- Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake
435 N.W.2d 627
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We said that, except in those rare cases in which the city’s decision has no rational basis, “it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities in the performance of their duties.” * * * [[Image here]] We determined in Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, [ ] that the scope of review to be used for zoning matters would be the same as that used for state administrative agency decisions.
- 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
- Paster v. Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n 424 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Paster v. Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n 424 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- 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
- Swanson v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1988
- Swanson v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1988
- Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- 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
- In Re the Variance Request of Johnson 404 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
In Re the Variance Request of Johnson
404 N.W.2d 298
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
They rely on the principle that a “zoning ordinance must operate uniformly on those similarly situated.”
- Swanson v. City of Bloomington 395 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Swanson v. City of Bloomington 395 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Application of Orr 396 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Application of Orr 396 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Distinguished Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- 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
- City of Barnum v. County of Carlton 386 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
City of Barnum v. County of Carlton
386 N.W.2d 770
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Thus, we must make an independent examination of the county board’s decision “without according any special deference to the same review conducted by the trial court.” *775 ().
- TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope 388 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope
388 N.W.2d 390
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
2) the proposed use would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the public; and (3) the city’s denial was made without any “contemporaneous findings of fact.” The trial court also found that the moratorium was a “subterfuge” to prohibit TPW’s “legitimate use of its property.”
- Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- 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
- Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984