Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309.

229 citing documents.

Opay v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
v. City of Grant, (words and phrases carry plain and ordinary meaning).
Moreno v. City of Minneapolis 676 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Moreno v. City of Minneapolis 676 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
v. City of Grant, (emphasis added); Tollefson Dev., (holding that 60-day time period ran from date of written amendment to the zoning application ) (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State, Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board v. Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party 671 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State, Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board v. Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party 671 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 668 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Murphy v. Allina Health System 668 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Murphy v. Allina Health System 668 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
v. City of Grant, (citation omitted).
Hare v. State, Department of Human Services 666 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hare v. State, Department of Human Services 666 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Tollefson Development, Inc. v. City of Elk River 665 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Tollefson Development, Inc. v. City of Elk River 665 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield 664 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
v. City of Grant, -13 (2001).
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Tower, (construction and application of Minn.Stat.
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Msi v. Lmcit 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 646 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kramer v. Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners 647 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kramer v. Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners 647 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
v. City of Grant, (“The statute does not limit the application of subdivision 3(f) to extenuating circumstances — it merely requires, that the reasons [for extending the 60-day limit] be stated.”) Accordingly, we conclude that (1) the 30-day appeal period granted by section 116D.04, subd.
Occhino v. Grover 640 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Occhino v. Grover 640 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
v. City of Grant, (addressing facial or patent meaning); (addressing applied or latent meaning).