Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307.

96 citing documents.

Frank R. Dropps, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ROA Rochester, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
An appellate court reviews the record made before a municipal body “without according any special deference to the same review conducted by the trial court.” Swanson v. City of Bloomington , (quotation omitted).
Dan Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mike and Kristina Herbst, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
8 Generally, if “the municipal proceeding was fair and the record clear and complete,” judicial review of zoning matters should be based on “the record made before the local zoning body.” 314 (Minn. 1988).
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023. Minn. 2023
We typically review a governing body’s decision for whether it is “unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ali Alfureedy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 307, 313 (Minn. 1988).
Thomas Behrends, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Swanson v. City of Bloomington , ().
Almir Puce, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Swanson v. City of Bloomington , (reviewing city’s denial of application to subdivide lot ).
In the Matter of Application Number 2020-006782, Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
may still be taken into account.” Swanson v. City of Bloomington
Croix Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Swanson v. City of Bloomington , (stating district court may receive additional evidence “on substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body and th en only on determini ng that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal proceedings”).
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Swanson v. City of Bloomington
Steven W. Hill, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 When a party challenges a zoning authority ’s decision via a declaratory-judgment action, the district court may allow the par ties to supplement the r ecord with additional evidence if it determines “that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal proceedings.”
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Swanson v. City of Bloomington , .
Bernard Friel, James Losleben, Jill Smith, Robert Bonine, Marina McManus, Robert Diedrich, Stephen Treichel, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mathew Davis, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
LeRoy J. Rossow, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Reasonableness is measured by ‘the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.’”
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Our review focuses “on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.”
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Meleyco Partnership No. 2 v. City of West St. Paul 874 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reviewing factual determinations by municipality); -17 (Minn. 1981) (reviewing quasi- legislative decision of municipality).
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Township Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
We will uphold a decision if the zoning authority’s findings are “supported by the evidence and provide[] a rational basis for the municipal decision.” d 307, 314 (Minn. 1988).
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
(“Where the municipal proceeding was fair and the record clear and complete, review should be *491 on the record.”).
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
“[E]x-cept in those rare cases in which the city’s decision has no rational basis, ‘it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities in the performance of their duties.’ ” (quoting Honn, d at 417 ).
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2006
Our review focuses “on the legal sufficiency and factual basis for the reasons given.”
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Yeh v. County of Cass 696 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-13 (Minn.1988) (stating “that a district court should establish the scope and conduct of its review of a municipality’s zoning decision by considering the nature, fairness and adequacy of the proceeding at the local level and the adéquacy of the factual and decisional record of the local proceeding”).
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
(stating neighborhood feelings may be taken into account); see also Minn.Stat.
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
23.1988); (acknowledging city may consider neighborhood opposition).
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
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
See Carl Bolander & (“The standard of review is whether the [council’s] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.”); (holding that the general stand
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
VanLandschoot, d at 508 .
R.L. Hexum & Associates, Inc. v. Rochester Township, Board of Supervisors 609 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
R.L. Hexum & Associates, Inc. v. Rochester Township, Board of Supervisors 609 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-11 (Minn.1988) (characterizing standard of review in zoning matters as “reasonable basis,” “unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious,” or “reasonably debatable”).