Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386.

66 citing documents.

Chris Hansen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 296 () (quotation marks omitted).
MSP Apartments, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
v. Hanson, (“[T]here is no standing to raise a constitutional challenge absent a direct and personal harm resulting from the alleged denial of constitutional rights.”).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
substantial commitments have been made.” (explaining, also in an eminent-domain case, that procedural defects will not invalidate the city’s decision if they are insubstantial).
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele , , 393 (Minn. 1980).
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Manco of Fairmont, Inc. v. Town Bd.
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[T]here is no standing to raise a constitutional challenge absent a direct and personal harm resulting from the alleged denial of constitutional rights.”
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Minnwest Bank v. Arends 802 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(“[T]he law does not mandate in all cases strict and literal compliance with all procedural requirements.
State v. Hester 796 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2011
State v. Hester 796 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2011
In reaching its conclusion that only substantial compliance was required, the court *335
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, our supreme court noted that rules of strict compliance “will be relaxed when the condemning authority is public rather than private.”
Lundell v. COOPERATIVE POWER ASS'N 707 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2006
Lundell v. COOPERATIVE POWER ASS'N 707 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2006
“[T]he standard for overturning a [condemning authority’s] decision on public purpose grounds is very strict.”
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Rapp 621 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Rapp 621 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-96 (Minn.1980) (holding that actual taking may not occur until public purpose has been established); (same).
Nordvick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 610 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nordvick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 610 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Opus Northwest, LLC 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Manco of Fairmont, Inc. v. Town Board of Rock Dell Township 583 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of MCDA 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of MCDA 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, e.g., City of Duluth, d at 763-64 (condemnation of Jeno Paulucci's Chun King plant to allow a paper mill to be built); (condemnation of private property to construct City Center in downtown Minneapolis).
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Opus Northwest, LLC 582 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, e.g., City of Duluth, d at 763-64 (condemnation of , Jeno Paulucci’s Chun King plant to allow a paper mill to be built); (condemnation of private property to construct City Center in downtown Minneapolis).
Manco of Fairmont, Inc. v. Town Board of Rock Dell Township 583 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
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
(noting private property can be taken by public body only for public purpose); R.E.
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show “a direct and personal harm resulting from the alleged denial of constitutional rights.” (specific, concrete facts showing personal harm must be alleged).
City of Rochester v. Peoples Cooperative Power Ass'n 505 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rochester v. PEOPLES CO-OP. POWER ASS'N 505 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
City of Rochester v. Peoples Cooperative Power Ass'n 505 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
244 , 107 L.Ed.2d 194 (1989); -96 (Minn.1980); Cooperative Power Ass’n v. Eaton, -98 (Minn.1979).
Rochester v. PEOPLES CO-OP. POWER ASS'N 505 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
244 , 107 L.Ed.2d 194 (1989); -96 (Minn.1980); -98 (Minn.1979).
Biwabik Federation of Teachers, Aft Local Union No. 1303 v. Independent School District No. 693 464 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Biwabik Federation of Teachers, Aft Local Union No. 1303 v. Independent School District No. 693 464 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
When a statute requiring notice does not specify the form that notice must take, the statute is satisfied if the notice is “sufficient to apprise one of ordinary intelligence.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. 463 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1990
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. 463 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1990
nt" or a "firm proposal," the several items of correspondence between and among the parties, particularly the February 12th letter from Anderson's counsel and the March 5th letter from Liberty Mutual's counsel, strongly suggest that Liberty Mutual had received notice "`sufficient to apprise one of ordinary intelligence'" of the nature and subject matter of the transaction, and that Liberty Mutual had actual notice of the proposed transaction and of the parties' readiness to proceed with the tran
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Olson v. Blaeser 458 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(direct personal harm from alleged denial of constitutional rights is necessary for party to have standing to challenge statute).
May v. Strecker 453 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
May v. Strecker 453 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
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
Nordin v. L.S. Donaldson Co. 441 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nordin v. L.S. Donaldson Co. 441 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Condemnation by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency 439 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by