Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21.

35 citing documents.

Minn. 2023
I. A. When interpreting restrictive covenants, we have articulated the principle that “[r]estrictive covenants are strictly construed against limitations on the use of property.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., ().
Windcliff Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2021
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., d 21, 28 (Minn. 1981).
Nick Kossick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. , (providing that a district court cannot enjoin what a party “only assumes” or “fears will be a possible result”).
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
7 (2012); Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., (“These 9 statutes specify that a licensed group home for six or fewer .
In Re the Petition of Crablex, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Petition of Crablex, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Minnesota has a “policy of encouraging all legitimate interventions.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
Haverhill Township v. County of Olmsted 674 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Haverhill Township v. County of Olmsted 674 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A municipality receives power to zone only by legislative grant of authority by the state.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
County of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In fact, “[i]n Minnesota, * * *, a municipality has no inherent power to enact zoning regulations.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
My Brother's Keeper v. Scott County 621 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
My Brother's Keeper v. Scott County 621 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
7 “as part of a broad program, on the state and national level, to de-institutionalize mentally retarded persons and return them to the community.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
Luthen v. Luthen 596 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Luthen v. Luthen 596 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Thus, “if [the applicant’s] interest is similar to, but not identical with, that of one of the parties, a discriminating judgment is required on the circumstances of the particular case, but [the applicant] ordinarily should be allowed to intervene unless it is clear that the party will provide adequate representation for the absentee.” Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., (quoting 7A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1909, at 524 (1972) (footnote omitted))
Jerome Faribo Farms, Inc. v. County of Dodge 464 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Jerome Faribo Farms, Inc. v. County of Dodge 464 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
County of Winona v. City of Winona 453 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Winona v. City of Winona 453 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
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
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Crow Wing Environment Protection Ass'n v. City of Breezy Point 394 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
William v. City of Ham Lake 393 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
William v. City of Ham Lake 393 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Costley v. Caromin House, Inc.
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
efsland, supra (employer possessed subrogation right in employee’s tort recovery for workers’ compensation benefits paid); (insured possessed subrogation rights for no-fault benefits paid); nor will any action be taken, or fail to be taken, by any party as a result of this litigation which will affect him
Norman v. Refsland 383 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1986
Norman v. Refsland 383 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1986
See Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., -29 (1981) (“We have followed the policy of encouraging all legitimate interventions.
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s opinion in Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., the trial court found the Good Neighbor home to be a familial arrangement within the Little Canada ordinance.
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
As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., “Minnesota is one of an increasing number of states that have enacted legislation designed to facilitate acceptance of group homes in residential communities.” (footnote omitted) In addition, the Attorney General argues, convincingly, that local action is precluded by the statutory (Minn.Stat.