Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721.

44 citing documents.

ROA Rochester, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Municipalities have broad discretionary power in considering whether to grant or deny a variance.” Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka , , 727 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Rosalie Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As a preliminary matter, the parties dispute the import of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s on their case.
Mary Nesgoda, Relator, vs. County of Le Sueur, et al., Respondents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mary Nesgoda, Relator, vs. County of Le Sueur, et al., Respondents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 721, 733 (Minn. 2010) (clarifying applicable legal standard).
Daley Farm of Lewiston, L.L.P., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 721, 732-33 (Minn. 2010) (remanding a variance application to the decision-maker for application of the proper legal standard).
In re Resolution Denying Stoick Creek, LLC's Application for a Second Driveway Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Resolution Denying Stoick Creek, LLC's Application for a Second Driveway Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, -33 (Minn. 2010); -33 (Minn. 2008)
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
14 “we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute.”
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
App. P. 103.03; Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citing Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka , ).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 721, 727, 732-33 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that a city’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if based on a mistake as to th e applicable law).
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
13 We review a municipal variance decision “to determine whether the m unicipality 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.” Krummenacher v. C ity of Minnetonka , (quotations omitted) .
Schulz v. Town of Duluth 923 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schulz v. Town of Duluth 923 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6(2) ; Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka , , 727-28 (Minn. 2010).
Thomas A. Ruether, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Basim Sabri, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A] local government ‘is not required’ to permit the expansion of such nonconformities.” (quoting County of Freeborn v. Claussen , 295 Minn. 96, 99, ).
Mathew Davis, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Krummenacher v. City of 14 Minnetonka, –33 (Minn. 2010) (“In cases where a variance has been denied, the general rule is that if the zoning authority’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, the standard remedy is that the court orders the permit to be issued.” (quotation omitted)).
Steven R. Saba v. City of Fridley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven R. Saba v. City of Fridley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 878 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2016
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Application of EOF Investments, LLC. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Application of EOF Investments, LLC. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 721, 729-30 (Minn. 2010) (discussing the distinctions between the “practical difficulties,” “particular hardship,” and “undue hardship” standards in the context of granting a variance).
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. 845 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2014
(remanding denial of variance application for consideration under the proper legal standard); (remanding to district court after clarifying the legal standard because the district court was in the best position to review the record and apply the standard
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Unpublished decisions should not be cited by the district courts as binding precedent.” (citations omitted)); , 730 n. 12 (Minn.2010) (stating that the denial of a petition for review does not give a court of appeals decision more precedential value than a court of appeals decision from which no review was sought).
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
White v. City of Elk River 822 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
Followed State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 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
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n
Taylor v. LSI Corp. of America 796 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011
Taylor v. LSI Corp. of America 796 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011