Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106.

49 citing documents.

Lake West Development LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To be entitled to mandamus relief, Lake West must show that (1) the city “failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law”; (2) Lake West “suffered a public wrong” and was specifically injured by the city’s failure; and (3) Lake West has “no other adequate legal remedy.” -10 (Minn. 2006) (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro.
Chris Hansen v. Haven Township Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal determination, [appellate courts] review that decision de novo.”
Dayton Holding, Inc., d/b/a West Lakeland Freeway Properties v. Town of West Lakeland, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Peter K Butler v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Peter K Butler v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(citing Minn. Const. art. XII, § 3).
Troy K Scheffler v. Lake Edward Township, County of Crow Wing Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“To be entitled to mandamus relief, [a party] must show that: 1) the city failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law; 2) he suffered a public wrong and was specifically injured by the city’s failure; and 3) he has no other adequate legal remedy.” -10 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
14 Cherrywood, LLC v. City of North Oaks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Breza v. City of Minnetrista , aff’d
In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi Minn. 2022
See Breza v. City of Minnetrista , n .3 (Minn. 2006) (describing the wetland bank system).
A20-1295 A20-1296 Minn. 2022
Troy K. Scheffler v. Lake Edward Township Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Council, ( citations omitted); -10 (Minn. 2006).
H. Joseph Slater, Kimberly Devine, et al v. Wabasha County Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo.” Breza v. City of Minnetrista
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Minn. 2020
Because the effects of this ordinance extend beyond the borders of Minneapolis, in violation of the extraterritoriality doctrine, I respectfully dissent.1 I. Minnesota municipalities, including the City of Minneapolis, “possess no inherent powers and are purely creatures of the legislature.” see Minn. Const. art. XII, § 3 (“The legislature may provide by law for the creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions .
Keith B. Hagen, et al v. Windemere Township Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joseph Bergeron v. Commissioner of Corrections, Tom Roy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 106, 109-10 (Minn. 2006).
EMERGE Community Development v. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Qwest Corp. 918 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Qwest Corp. 918 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc ., , 233 n.2 (Minn. 2007) (denying as moot motion to strike portions of briefs that the court did not consider in deciding appeal); Breza v. City of Minnetrista , , 515 n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (denying motion to strike amicus brief that provided some useful insights), aff'd
James Michael McConnell, et al v. Blue Earth County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Douglas v. Stillwater Area Public Schools 899 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
based solely on a legal determination.”
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association, et al v. The City of Lino Lakes, et al., Anoka County … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association, et al v. The City of Lino Lakes, et al., Anoka County … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-10 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).
Ralph A. Fredlund, et al v. Eureka Township Board of Supervisors Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ralph A. Fredlund, et al v. Eureka Township Board of Supervisors Minn. Ct. App. 2015
D-14 “When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo.”
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo.”
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
Brezo, v. City of Minnetrista, -14 (2006).
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Houck v. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY SCHOOLS 787 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of S.L.J. 782 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of S.L.J. 782 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2010
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 760 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 760 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is ápproval of the request.” (stating that the court of appeals has strictly enforced the 60-day rule in a number of cases by "consistently holding that an agency's failure to comply with the section 15.99 timeline results in automatic approval of the request at issue”).
State v. White 759 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minn. Const. art. XII, § 3
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
City of Wyoming v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 735 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Breza v. City of *750 Minnetrista
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
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 727 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 727 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Id.; -14 (Minn.2006) (characterizing Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2000) as timing statute that does not preempt substantive law); Tischer v. Hous.