Cited by

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

259 citing documents.

Fish Hook Ass'n v. Grover Bros. Partnership 417 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ounties the authority to carry on planning and zoning activities, states the statute is “for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community * * Thus, the standard of review of a zoning classification is “whether the classification is reasonably related to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” (emphasis in original).
Good Value Homes, Inc. v. City of Eagan 410 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Good Value Homes, Inc. v. City of Eagan 410 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board 400 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board 400 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Relators also argue that because the Board initially prepared a draft order forming the watershed district and including the Big Fish Lake area within its boundaries five weeks prior to final action, as authority for the proposition it is unfair to permit an agency to retrospectively rationalize its decision.
Swanson v. City of Bloomington 395 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Swanson v. City of Bloomington 395 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Carlone v. City of St. Paul 395 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carlone v. City of St. Paul 395 N.W.2d 723 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
Day v. Wright County 391 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Day v. Wright County 391 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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 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
While city council decisions on special use permits are quasi-judicial, the City of Hugo argues certiorari is inappropriate here because Minn.Stat.
TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope 388 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
TPW, INC. v. City of New Hope 388 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rockville Township v. Lang 387 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rockville Township v. Lang 387 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The rational basis test means that “even if the city council’s decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does, the courts do not interfere.”
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 377 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 377 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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
Curtis Oil v. City of North Branch 364 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Curtis Oil v. City of North Branch 364 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Authorization to Discharge & Construct Waste-Water Treatment Facilities 366 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Authorization to Discharge & Construct Waste-Water Treatment Facilities 366 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sanctioning this procedure would be unfair to appellants and “runs the risk inherent in any opportunity to rationalize or justify what one has done before.”
Vettleson v. Special School District No. 1 361 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Vettleson v. Special School District No. 1 361 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
Alexandria Lake Coalition Inc. v. Douglas County 348 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Alexandria Lake Coalition Inc. v. Douglas County 348 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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
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
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
Recently we noted that the declaratory judgment action “has become, in many ways, ‘an all-purpose writ.’ ” , 416 n. 5 (Minn.1981), citing J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 57.05 (1979).
Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281 336 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1983
Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281 336 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1983
The standard of review for a writ of certiorari is the “substantial evidence” standard, which goes to the underlying factual basis for the Board’s decision.
VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights 336 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1983