Cited by

A plaintiff asserting estoppel against the government to prevent its enforcing of its zoning code must show, among other things , “some degree of malfeasance” beyond “simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct.” (quotation omitted).

A party seeking to equitably estop a governmental entity must prove, among other things, “wrongful conduct on the part of an authorized government agent.” (quotation omitted).

See, - 24 (Minn. 2011) (reviewing district court’s equitable-estoppel decision after bench trial for an abuse of discretion); Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (reviewing district court’s equitable-subrogation decision for an abuse of discretion); Nadeau v. County

.” 16 view of the law” or is “against the facts in the record.”

We review a district court’s “equitable determinations for abuse of discretion.”

“[A] district court’s conclusion on equitable estoppel after a bench trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

-24 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted) .

d 18, 23-24 (Minn. 2011).

d 18, 22, 25-26 (Minn. 2011); Mohler v. City of St.

See City of North Oaks v. Sarpal

Generally, a district court abuses its di scretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law, Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., or when its decision is against the facts in the record

25- 26 (Minn. 2011); Mohler v. City of St.

A district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law” or when “its decision is against the fact s in the record.” City of N. Oaks v. Sarpal

City of North Oaks v. Sarpal , (reversing the determination that the elements of estoppel had been met and concluding that the conduct in question was not wrongful but rather a simple mistake).

“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we may overrule the district court when the court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law.” City of N. Oaks v. Sarpal

(concluding that it is immaterial whether the fact -finder is a judge or jury in this context ), rev’d on other grounds

A party seeking to invoke equitable estoppel against a governmental entity must establish four elements: (1) “wrongful conduct” by an authorized government agent, (2) reasonable reliance on the wrongful conduct, (3) “a unique expenditure in reliance on the wrongful conduct,” and (4) equit able considerations that “weigh in favor of estoppel.” City of North Oaks v. Sarpal , (citations omitted).

City of North Oaks v. Sarpal

City of North Oaks v. Sarpal , , 25 (Minn. 2011).

This court reviews “equitable determinations for an abuse of discretion.” City of N. Oaks v. Sarpal

A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law” or is “a gainst the facts in the record.”

City of N. Oaks v. Sarpal

Melrose Gates, see also City of North Oaks v. Sarpal , (c oncluding that “a district court’s conclusion on equitable estoppel .

Appellate courts review “equitable determinations for abuse of discretion.”

“Under the abuse -of-discretion standard, we ma y overrule the district court when the court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law.” City of N. Oaks v. Sarpal , 4 (Minn. 2011).