Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253.

74 citing documents.

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
Hubbard Broadcasting, (regulation by zoning does not constitute compen-sable taking unless it deprives property of all reasonable uses)
Davis v. City of Princeton 401 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. City of Princeton 401 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that regulation of land use: does not constitute a compensable taking unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use.
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
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
On the facts as adduced at trial this court finds as a matter of law that there was no taking in a constitutional sense of Plaintiff’s property and/or of his rights therein either by regulation ( [Minn.1980]) or by physical appropriation (see Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission of Minneapolis and St.
Keenan v. International Falls-Koochiching County Airport Zoning Board 357 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Keenan v. International Falls-Koochiching County Airport Zoning Board 357 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
a property owner sued a city, county and airport zoning board, claiming that an airport zoning ordinance had resulted in a taking of his property without just compensation.
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1984
this court declared that “[w]e have consistently held that administrative remedies need not be pursued if it would be futile to do so.” d at 256 .
Spaeth v. City of Plymouth 344 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1984
Spaeth v. City of Plymouth 344 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1984
Nevertheless, the City contended at oral argument that there has been no taking under the enterprise/ because it was acting in an arbitration capacity.
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton 323 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1982
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton 323 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1982
the district court noted that the right to use property as one wishes is subject to, and limited by, the proper exercise of the police power in the regulation of land use and that such regulation does not constitute a compensable taking unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use.
City of Mankato v. Hilgers 313 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1981
City of Mankato v. Hilgers 313 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1981
That request was denied on the ground that it would be beneficial to await this court’s decision in a case then pending
Pratt v. State, Department of Natural Resources 309 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1981
Pratt v. State, Department of Natural Resources 309 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1981
2646 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978), the state argues the prohibition against harvesting rice mechanically is not a taking, but merely reasonable regulation, an exercise of its police powers, like zoning.
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 300 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1980
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 300 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1980
where plaintiff property owners argued that an airport approach zoning ordinance resulted in a “taking,” we noted a distinction between interference with private property by regulation of property use, as through zoning, and interference by the government’s physical intrusion.