Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174.

91 citing documents.

Claim of City of Mankato v. Mahoney 542 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See White Bear Docking & Storage, (reversing city’s denial of conditional use permit as arbitrary because it lacked legally sufficient reasons), review denied (Minn. Mar.
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Carl Bolander & White Bear Docking &amp
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
White Bear Docking & Storage
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele 506 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See White Bear Docking & Storage
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
White Bear Docking & Storage
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
Municipal decisions should be reversed only in “rare instances” where the decision has “no rational basis.” White Bear Docking & Storage
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
White Bear Docking and Storage, see also Swanson, d at 311 .
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
White Bear Docking and Storage
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
thoroughly discussed the standard for our review of decisions made by municipal officials: In White Bear Docking and Storage, we considered the role of the judiciary in countermanding zoning decisions reached by municipal officials and concluded that “[t]he court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” We reiterated the rule we had set out in Honn v.
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
White Bear Docking and Storage, (emphasis added).
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
In White Bear Docking and Storage, we considered the role of the judiciary in countermanding zoning decisions reached by municipal officials and concluded that “[t]he court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” We reiterated the rule we had set out in Honn v.
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
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
White Bear Docking & Storage
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
Investments, see also White Bear Docking and Storage, (council has wide discretion).
City of Mounds View v. Johnson 377 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
City of Mounds View v. Johnson 377 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See White Bear Docking and Storage, (review of permit issuance); Honn, d at 415 (review of rezoning).
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
later case, suggests that in determining the reasonableness of a zoning action, a reviewing court should examine “whether the reasons assigned by the governing body do not have ‘the slightest validity’ or bearing on the welfare of the immediate area...’’ (quoting White Bear Docking and Storage, ), or “whether the reasons given by the body were legally sufficient and ...
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
The substitution of a 10-foot by 50-foot mobile trailer for a 10-foot by 18-foot trailer was considered a “structural enlargement” in White Bear Docking and Storage
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
White Bear Docking and Storage
Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
White Bear Docking and Storage
VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights 336 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1983
VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights 336 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1983
White Bear Docking and Storage