Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623.

52 citing documents.

Frank R. Dropps, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Bruce Allen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A regulatory taking may occur “when the government goes too far in its regulation, so as to unfairly diminish the value of the individual’s property, thus causing the individual to bear the burden rightly borne by the public.” Wensmann Realty, (quotation omitted).
Cup Foods, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Whether a governmental entity’s action constitutes a taking is a question of law that we review de novo.” Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan , , 631 (Minn. 2007).
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The purpose of the Takings Clause is to ensure that the government does not require some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Wensmann Realty, (quotations omitted).
A24-1454 A24-1455 A24-1700 A24-1741 A24-1750 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Wensmann Realty, -32 (Minn. 2007).
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Whether a government entity’s action constitutes a taking is a question of law that we review de novo.” Wensmann Realty
EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
aking occurred when the city denied their application to develop the property , and the second taking occurred when the city amended its Zoning Code to exclude gas stations and convenience stores from the list of permitted uses in N-COM districts.8 “Whether a government entity’s action constitutes a taking is a question of law that we review de novo.” Wensmann Realty
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Wensmann Realty, (“Because the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the [respondent], we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to .
Ali Alfureedy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When reviewing the legislative actions of a municipality, “[w]e review the record to determine if the reasons given by the city are legally sufficient and supported by a factual basis.” Wensmann Realty
Hader Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
On appeal of a motion for summary judgment, we must “determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wensmann Realty, see also Minn. R. Civ.
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-23 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d, overruled on other grounds by Wensmann Realty
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether a governmental entity’s action constitutes a taking is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Wensmann Realty, (citing Alevizos v. Metro.
Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
Mark R. Zweber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bernard Friel, James Losleben, Jill Smith, Robert Bonine, Marina McManus, Robert Diedrich, Stephen Treichel, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan , , 630 (Minn. 2007).
Glen M. Palecek, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Wensmann Realty, Inc., v. City of Eagan , , 632 n.5 (Minn. 2007).
County of Isanti, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Whether a governmental entity’ s action constitutes a tak ing is a question of law that [appellate 8 courts] review de novo.” Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Hall, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
County of Isanti v. Keith Allen Kiefer, and third party v. City of Ramsey, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
County of Isanti v. Keith Allen Kiefer, and third party v. City of Ramsey, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It “is well established that the government need not directly appropriate or physically invade private property to effectuate a taking.” Wensmann Realty
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“It is well established that the government need not directly appropriate or physically invade private property to effectuate a taking.” Wensmann Realty
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court stated: “[i]t is well established that the government need not directly appropriate or physically invade 5 private property to effectuate a taking.” Wensmann Realty
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of the Takings Clause is to ensure that the government does not require some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Wensmann Realty, (quotations omitted).
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Wensmann Realty, -32 (Minn.2007).
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The purpose of the Takings Clause is to ensure that the government does not require some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Wensmann Realty, (quotations omitted).
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
The court also cited a footnote to our decision in Wensmann Realty, in which we said we did not consider McShane to be “ ‘different from or inconsistent with the flexible approach to takings’ ” adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases interpreting the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
3 See, e.g., Wen *192 smann Realty, (remanding when disputed fact issues prevented the court from deciding issue on appeal).
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by