Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-17 (Minn. 1981) (stating decision-maker must give reasonable basis for zoning decisions); see also White Bear Rod & (remanding for findings where city Council’s denial of special-use permit amendment lacked findings of fact or other explanation of its
Hoskin v. City of Eagan 632 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hoskin v. City of Eagan 632 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Horton v. Township of Helen 624 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
City of Hibbing v. Baratto 620 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
City of Hibbing v. Baratto 620 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
of Comm’rs, , 574 & n. 5 (Minn.2000) (noting as well that district court review of quasi-judicial zoning actions is in accord with the “general rule” ).
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Speed Limit for the Union Pacific Railroad Ex Rel. City of Shakopee 610 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Speed Limit for the Union Pacific Railroad Ex Rel. City of Shakopee 610 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
R.L. Hexum & Associates, Inc. v. Rochester Township, Board of Supervisors 609 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
R.L. Hexum & Associates, Inc. v. Rochester Township, Board of Supervisors 609 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-15 (Minn.1981) (citing Rochester Ass’n of Neighborhoods, d at 888 ).
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” (Anderson, J., concurring specially); (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Rochester Ass’n (greater scrutiny required entity to support findings with “substantial evidence”).
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-15 (Minn.1981); Arcadia Dev.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council 587 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1999
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council 587 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1999
see also Western Area Business and Civic Chib v. Duluth School 3d.
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lee 584 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lee 584 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“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) (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n ).
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
White Bear, d at 742 ().
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(certiorari is issued by a court to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions); Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 337 , (a particular act may be administrative for the' purpose of deciding which branch of the government it comes
Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Criticized Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington 552 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(municipalities should prepare contemporaneous find *289 ings to support any zoning decision, whether legislative or quasi-judicial).
Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board 550 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1996
Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board 550 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1996
514, 517 (1925)); (stating "when the administrative law judge also decided the threshold issue of statutory construction as to [the] legal entitlement to attorney fees, this was an exercise of quasi-judicial powers”); (explaining that a city council's 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”); Appeal of Signal Delivery Serv., Inc., (Minn.
In Re the Application of Merritt 537 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Application of Merritt 537 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
ANALYSIS A court issues a writ of certiorari “to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.”
Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul 529 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul 529 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Pierce v. Otter Tail County 524 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pierce v. Otter Tail County 524 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pierce argues that certiorari is not the appropriate means to review zoning and related decisions
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Therefore, they argue that review in the *76 where the supreme court said: This [declaratory judgment] procedure should be followed in presenting any zoning matter, whether legislative or quasi-judicial, for review to the district court and for subsequent review to this court.
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
-16 (Minn.1981), the dissenting opinion argued that the county board should be afforded an opportunity at trial to rebut the presumption of arbitrariness of its decision and demonstrate a rational basis for it with evidence and testimony limited in scope to those issues raised before the planning commission and co
Ganguli v. University of Minnesota 512 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1994