Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409.

259 citing documents.

David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
or is the decision ‘reasonably debatable’?”
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“[I]n adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, a municipality acts in a legislative capacity_”).
Pawn America Minnesota, LLC v. City of St. Louis Park 787 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2010
Pawn America Minnesota, LLC v. City of St. Louis Park 787 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2010
where we said that in reviewing a zoning authority’s actions, the standard is whether the action has a reasonable basis, or is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
(concluding that when legally sufficient reasons are not recorded or reduced to writing, the zoning authority “runs the risk of not having its decision sustained”).
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
of Comm’rs, (); see also Minn.Stat.
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka 768 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka 768 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(holding that a record of municipal proceedings is adequate, for purposes of judicial review, where reasons for the decision are reduced to writing in more than just a conclusory fashion).
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County, (explaining that the decision to grant a zoning variance or special use permit is quasi-judicial because “the zoning authority is applying specific use standards set by the zoning ordinance to a particular individual use”).
Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass'n v. Becker County Board of Commissioners 738 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass'n v. Becker County Board of Commissioners 738 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
A decision regarding a proposed amendment to a city’s comprehensive plan is legislative in nature, see id., and the decision will be upheld unless the party challenging the decision can establish that there was no rational basis for the decision, -15 (Minn.1981).
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
-15 (Minn.1981) (" 'As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.’ ” (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n of Neighborhoods v. City
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that certiorari is not appropriate to review legislative acts).
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” -15 (Minn.1981) (quotation omitted).
Lam v. City of St. Paul 714 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lam v. City of St. Paul 714 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
(stating that “a municipality acts in a legislative capacity” in adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, “regardless of the size of the tract involved”).
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
(“[Certiorari] is issued by a court to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.”).
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(observing that municipality at minimum should reduce basis for zoning decision to writing); R.A.
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-17 (Minn.1981); Molnar v. County of Carver Bd.
Moreno v. City of Minneapolis 676 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Moreno v. City of Minneapolis 676 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
of Comm’rs, -17 (Minn. 1981).
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Honn v. City of Coon Rap *364 ids, (providing procedure for review of legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions); see also White Bear Rod & (concluding that “certiorari ordinarily is no longer appropriate in reviewing any zoning matter, legislative or quasi-judicial”).
Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church 672 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church 672 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant 636 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2001
American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant 636 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2001
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
While it is not necessary to prepare formal findings of fact, a county board “must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.”
Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by