Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite American Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 802 N.W.2d 781.

34 citing documents.

GEP XI Maple Grove LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Re: The Jorgenson Family Trust Agreement dated March 12, 2001. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 5
Mahmood Khan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re: Ursula E. Nelson Trust under Agreement dated 3/21/2014, as Amended. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Paul v. City of Minneapolis
Kevin S. Carpenter, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Trevor Hogan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(acknowledging that whether the district court applied the proper legal standard is subject to de novo review).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul v. City of Minneapolis , (quotation omitted).
Jason Wallace Horsman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Paul v. City of Minneapolis , (stating that “ a fact-finder is not required to accept uncontradicted testimony if the surrounding facts and circumstances afford reasonable grounds for doubting its credibility” (quotation omitted)).
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Paul v. City of Minneapolis , , 785 (Minn. App. 2011).
Glen M. Palecek, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 781, 789 (Minn. App. 2011).
James Cortese, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding that a city’s assessment for an areaway removal was a regulatory service fee where the service provided a direct benefit to the property assessed and affected only that property).
Father John Dee Czaplewski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(applying that standard).
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul 884 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2016
the court instead concluded that the ROW assessment is a regulatory “fee for services” imposed under the City’s police power, and that the fee was valid because it satisfied a “reasonableness” standard.
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fred E. Friedrichs v. Lake Washington Sanitary District Minn. Ct. App. 2016
( “For the purpose of establishing a prima facie case that an assessment is valid, a calculation based on the cost of the improvement is deemed reasonably related to the value of special benefits.” (quotation omitted)).
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2015
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
110 Wyman, LLC, (A14-1176), Ruby Red Dentata, LLC, (A14-1177) v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
this court concluded that the special-benefit standard applies to assessments collected under a city’s taxing power but does not apply to assessments collected under the city’s police power, which are instead subject to a reasonableness test.
Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 781, 789 (Minn. App. 2011) (affirming the city’s assessment because there was no evidence that the amount was unreasonable and noting that neither due-process nor fairness concerns were implicated).
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Great Western Industrial Park, LLC v. Randolph Township 853 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Great Western Industrial Park, LLC v. Randolph Township 853 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-88 (Minn.App.2011), the township argues that, under its general police power, it was authorized to certify the unpaid CUP-application expenses as a property-tax assessment under section 366.012.
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[I]t is the district court’s exclusive responsibility to reconcile conflicting evidence.”).
Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-88 (Minn. App. 2011), the township argues that, under its general police power, it was authorized to certify the unpaid CUP-application expenses as a property-tax assessment under section 366.012.