Cited by

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

96 citing documents.

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
(describing as “contemporaneous” written findings adopted by city council at meeting when it denied plat application); Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel, 296 Minn. 362, 366 , (per curiam) (“We are not impressed by the vague references in the council minutes * * * as justification f
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
National Audubon Society v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 569 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
National Audubon Society v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 569 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
g the need for an EIS, this court reviews the agency decision to determine if it is “ ‘unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.’ ” review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995); ().
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Myron v. City of Plymouth 562 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Myron v. City of Plymouth 562 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources 531 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources 531 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture 528 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture 528 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
See, (subdivision request properly denied; city council made specific findings under zoning ordinance).
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Chase, d at 412 (review of municipality’s denial of building permit); (“The standard of review is whether a municipal body’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious”).
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
Because we conclude the Krmpotich claims fail even if the additional evidence is considered, -14 (Minn.1988), which sets out when a trial court may accept additional material evidence when reviewing a municipal body’s decision.
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
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State Ex Rel. Minneapolis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis 468 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood 467 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Croix Development, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley 446 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Croix Development, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley 446 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Shockency v. Jefferson Lines 439 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1989
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
thoroughly discussed the standard for our review of decisions made by municipal officials: In White Bear Docking and Storage, we considered the role of the judiciary in countermanding zoning decisions reached by municipal officials and conc
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kehr v. City of Roseville 426 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: [Ejxcept 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.”
Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 425 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1988
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton 425 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988