Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349.

34 citing documents.

Mark Wocken, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And we have held that an administrative land- use decision is based on legally insufficient reasons when it relies “on land use standards that are ‘unreasonably vague’ or ‘unreasonably subjective.’” (quoting C.R.
In the Matter of the Application of Dairy Ridge, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Thus, a city’s denial of a land use request is not arbitrary when at least one of the reasons for the denial satisfies the rational basis test.” Trisko v. City of Waite Park , 2 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotations and citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Roger Francis Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Application of USS Great River Solar LLC for an Interim Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“ Not all reasons for the denial of a conditional use permit need be legally 14 sufficient and supported by facts in the record.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Application of Impact Power Solutions, LLC and MN CSG 2019-29 LLC for a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Denial of a CUP is not legally sufficient if the municipality bases its denial on land-use standards that are “unreasonabl y vague” or “unreasonably subjective.” Trisko v. City of Waite Park , (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Woodland Gale Owners’ Association, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Trisko v. City of Waite Park , , review denied (Minn. Sept.
In re An Order Finding Certain Facts and Ordering the Denial of a Conditional Use Permit United States … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Renewal of Therapeutic Massage License Numbers EMT-13217 and … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[A] city’s denial of a land use request is not arbitrary when at least one of the reasons given for the denial satis fies the rational basis test.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Basim Sabri, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Minnesota Solar, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept.
A Resolution Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order Denying S. M. Hentges & … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Trisko v. City of Waite Park , d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sno-Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Sept.
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that, “because the neighbors based their fears of an expected increase in respiratory problems on unscientific 14 speculation, not medical fact, the city acted arbitrarily by ignoring [the CUP applicant]’s expert evidence”), review denied
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997) (“Not all reasons for the denial of a conditional use permit need be legally sufficient and supported by facts in the record.
David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A permit denial is not unreasonable “when at least one of the reasons given for the denial satisfies the rational basis test.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citation omitted), revieiu denied (Minn. Sept.
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
( rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Beca of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 607 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Beca of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 607 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
B & F revieio denied (Minn. Sept.
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
review denied (Minn. Sept.
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In support of its argument, AVR cites Trisko v. City of Waite Park, in which this court held that a municipality must base a decision to deny a conditional use permit on “something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expression of concern for public safety.” (quoting Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, ), review denied (Minn. Sept.