Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739.

68 citing documents.

Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 513 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1994
In our view, these proceedings and the board’s where the gun club sought to amend and expand the special use permit for its shooting range.
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
White Bear Rod & -97 (Minn.App.1990) (temporary injunction under MERA proper in spite of county’s contrary grant of conditional use permit), pet.
In Re Combined Air & Solid Waste Permit No. 2211-91-OT-1 for the Dakota County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste … 483 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re Combined Air & Solid Waste Permit No. 2211-91-OT-1 for the Dakota County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste … 483 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
White Bear Rod & (footnote omitted).
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Uniprop Manufactured Housing, Inc. v. City of Lakeville 474 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Nichols v. Borst 439 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nichols v. Borst 439 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Fryberger v. Township of Fredenberg 428 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Fryberger v. Township of Fredenberg 428 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Municipal Planning Act, however, is silent on what is an "appropriate remedy.” :
William v. City of Ham Lake 393 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
William v. City of Ham Lake 393 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
City of Barnum v. County of Carlton 389 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1986
City of Barnum v. County of Carlton 389 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1986
les, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the County of Carlton, et al. for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals be, and the same is, granted for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to the Court of Appeals for its reconsideration of its decision in light of this court’s recent decision in White Bear Rod &amp