Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tri-State Land Co. v. City of Shoreview, 290 N.W.2d 775.

27 citing documents.

James M. Carlson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Carlson- Lang, d at 519)
Roger Aspengren, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But a property owner can overcome a special assessment ’s presumption of validity by submitting competent evidence that the property did not benefit from the improvement, see Buettner, d at 204, or by submitting competent evidence that the assessment exceeds the property’s market-value increase from the improvement
David Thompson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And “introduction of the assessment ro ll into evidence constitutes prima facie proof that the assessment does not exceed [the] special benefit.” (quotation omitted) .
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The presumption of a special assessment’s legality may be overcome by “introducing competent evidence that the assessment is greater than the increase in market value of the property due to the improvement.”
110 Wyman, LLC, (A14-1176), Ruby Red Dentata, LLC, (A14-1177) v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
110 Wyman, LLC, (A14-1176), Ruby Red Dentata, LLC, (A14-1177) v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 Under the special-benefit standard, a city may impose assessments for local improvements if: (1) the property “receive[s] a special benefit from the improvement”; (2) the assessment is “uniform upon the same class of property”; and (3) “the assessment [does] not exceed the special benefit.” d 775, 777 (Minn. 1980).
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
*786 (quotation omitted).
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Blonigen v. Blonigen 621 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding that trial court erred in not affording appellant “a de novo or independent review of its claim”).
Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 510 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 510 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(prima facie case is dispositive in absence of contrary evidence); see also Saylor v. Sass, 258 Minn. 300, 305 , (rules of court may be waived by party benefited by rule).
Buzick v. City of Blaine 505 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 505 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
Nastrom v. City of Blaine 498 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Nastrom v. City of Blaine 498 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 491 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 491 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake 414 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake 414 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2d 545 (Minn.1979) (de novo review was proper, no before and after market improvement valuation was made prior to the assessment); (the trial court was reversed because it did not afford de novo review on appeal from a special assessment; a reassessment hearing had been held, after the landowner’s objection, at which the landowner had submitted an appraisal which was reviewed by the city).
Independent School District 254 v. City of Kenyon 411 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Independent School District 254 v. City of Kenyon 411 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lunderberg v. City of St. Peter 398 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lunderberg v. City of St. Peter 398 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Carlson-Lang Realty Co., 307 Minn. at 369-70 , d at 519 ; Nyquist , 312 Minn, at 269, d at 697 .