Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Ganguli v. University of Minnesota 512 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(certiorari is appropriate to review judicial or quasi-judicial actions).
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
In other *268 words, a court should not interfere with a municipal zoning decision that has a “rational basis” or is “reasonably debatable.” Swanson, d at 314
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
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
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
NBZ Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 489 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
NBZ Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 489 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Neighborhood School Coalition v. Independent School District No. 279 484 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Neighborhood School Coalition v. Independent School District No. 279 484 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. Independent School District No. 281 479 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. Independent School District No. 281 479 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(courts issue certiorari to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions).
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-15 (Minn.1981) (quoting State, by Rochester Ass’n ).
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
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In re the Appeal of Brine 457 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re the Appeal of Brine 457 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
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
STATE, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Ellis 441 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
STATE, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Ellis 441 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nichols v. Borst 439 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nichols v. Borst 439 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“[Cjertiorari is properly used only to review quasi-judicial issues.”
Township of Ottertail v. Perham Hospital District 438 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Township of Ottertail v. Perham Hospital District 438 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Northwest Residence, -68 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet.
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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
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. City of Coon Rapids [ ] governing standard of review in zoning matters: “The standard of review is the same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority’s action was reasona
Fryberger v. Township of Fredenberg 428 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Fryberger v. Township of Fredenberg 428 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Municipal Planning Act, however, is silent on what is an "appropriate remedy.” :
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
Cases express this standard in various ways: Is there a “reasonable basis” for the decision; or is the decision “unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious;” or is the decision “reasonably debatable?”
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
Crystal Green v. City of Crystal 421 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Crystal Green v. City of Crystal 421 N.W.2d 393 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
The district court determined that because an accurate verbatim record of the complete hearing before the city council was available, it was proper to decide the case based on a
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
Fish Hook Ass'n v. Grover Bros. Partnership 417 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1988