Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323.

68 citing documents.

Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This court reviews zoning actions “to determine whether the zoning authority was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination.” (quotation omitted).
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[Distinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional, and we apply the language consistent with that intent.” -29 (Minn.2008).
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 820 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 820 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
But “distinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional, and we apply the language consistent with that intent.” -29 (Minn.2008).
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Ortell v. City of Nowthen 814 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Zoning ordinances were established to control land use, and development in order to promote public health, safety, welfare, morals, and aesthetics.”
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
-29 (Minn.2008) (stating that “distinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional, and we apply the language consistent with that intent”).
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
If the zoning authority’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, “the standard remedy is that the court orders the permit to be issued.”
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
We review such decisions “to determine whether the municipality “was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination.” (internal quotation omitted).
City of Jordan v. Church of St. John the Baptist of Jordan 764 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
City of Jordan v. Church of St. John the Baptist of Jordan 764 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A statute is ambiguous when the language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
(concluding that the issue of whether setback requirements in a county ordinance could be applied to a grandfathered nonconforming lot was not presented to or considered by the county board of adjustment and therefore was waived).