Cited by

See Mendota Golf, (analyzing a plaintiff’s inappropriate writ-of-mandamus request as a declaratory-judgment request).

6; see Mendota Golf, (explaining that “[z]oning ordinances are intended to carry out the 13 policies of a city’s comprehensive plan.”).

“The authority to issue a writ of mandamus is statutory.” Mendota Golf

24 debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does, the courts do not interfere.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , (quotation omitted).

A primary use of a writ of mandamus is “to compel the performance of an official duty clearly imposed by law.” Mendota Golf, see also Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (“The writ of mandamus may be issued .

Mendota Golf, Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2022).

Mendota Golf, (citing Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd.

Minn. Stat. § 462.361 (2022); see Mendota Golf, (acknowledging that a party may seek judicial review of a municipal zoning decision).

“When the municipal proceedings were fair and the record clear and complete, review is 4 on the record.” Mendota Golf

“Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy.” Mendota Golf, d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted); d 205, 207 (Minn. App. 1995) (requiring petitioners to demonstrate that they possess no other adequate legal remedy before mandamus can issue).

Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, see Mendota Golf, (“[W]e narrowly construe any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner.”); see also 3 Kenneth H. Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 18.04 (4th rev. ed. 1996) (“The consistent emphasis of the courts is upon the right of a landowner freely to use his property unless

“When the municipal proceedings were fair and the record clear and complete, review is on the record.” Mendota Golf

(quoting Mendota Golf, LLP v. C ity of Mendota Heights , d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added)).

“We do not give any special deference to the conclusions of the [district] courts, but rather engage in an independent examination of the record and arrive at our own conclusions as to the propriety of the city’s decision.” Mendota Golf

Mandamus “does not control the particular manner in which a duty is to be performed” or “dictate how discretion is to 9 be exercised.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights

Mendota Golf, -80 (Minn. 2006).

“Even if [a municipality’s zoning] decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does, the courts do not interfere.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. C ity of Mendota Heights , (quotation omitted).

Mendota Golf, (quotation omitted).

A “comprehensive plan constitutes the primary land use control for cities and supersedes all other municipal regulations.” Mendota Golf, d 162, 175 (Minn. 2006).

C I S I O N Standard of Review In reviewing a district court’s review of a municipality’s decision, this court “[does] not give any special deference to the conclusions of the [district] court s, but rather engage[s] in an independent examination of the record and arrive[s] at [its] own conclusions as to the propriety of the city’s decision.” Mendota Golf, (M inn.

Mendota Golf, n.13 (Minn. 2006) (finding the comprehensive plan, subdivision ordinance, and documents reflecting the historical designation, regulation , and character of the propert y are relevant to a city’s land use decision).

“Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , (quotation omitted).

A district court’s grant of mandamus is only for the “rare cases that the officials act in so clearly an arbitrary and capricious a manner that their action may be reviewed on mandamus.” Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , d 162, 176 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy, Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , , 171 (Minn. 2006), issued to compel a judicial officer to perform "an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station" or to "discharge any of [the court's] functions," Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2016).

Citizen All., d at 94 (quotation omitted); see also Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , (“Generally, [appellate courts] narrowly construe any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner.”); Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (“[A] zoning ordinance is in derogation of the common law and should be construe

“The two primary uses of mandamus are (1) to compel the performance of an official duty clearly imposed by law and (2) to compel the exercise of discretion when that exercise is required by law.” Mendota Golf

A reviewing court does “not give any special deference to the conclusions of the [district] court[], but rather engage[s] in an independent examination of the record and arrive[s] at [its] own conclusions as to the propriety of the city’s decision.” Mendota Golf

In an appeal of a municipal zoning decision, “[w]e do not give any special deference to the conclusions of the lower courts, but rather engage in an independent examination of the record and arrive at our own conclusions as to the propriety of the city’s decision.” Mendota Golf

6; see Mendota Golf, -75 (Minn. 2006) (discussing zoning and land use restrictions in Minnesota).

DECISION I. This is an appeal of a municipal zoning decision and as such, “[w]e do not give any special deference to the conclusions of the lower courts, but rather engage in an independent examination of the record and arrive at our own conclusions as to the propriety of the city’s decision.” Mendota Golf, -80 (Minn. 2006).

A writ of mandamus “may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.” Minn. Stat. § 586.01; see also Mendota Golf, (stating that it is also improper to use mandamus to interfere with the exercise of legislative discretion).