Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 465 N.W.2d 686.

47 citing documents.

In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
often evince[e] deliberate and unjustifiable injurious intent” (quotations omitted)); Northpointe Plaza v. City of 20 Rochester, (observing that “the theory of substantive due process is properly reserved for truly egregious and extraordinary cases” (quotation omitted)).
Travis Widner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(turning to Eighth Circuit caselaw for “guidance” on an issue of first impression in Minnesota related to 42 U.S.C.
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester , (holding that, in the context of a substantive due-process zoning dispute claim brought under section 1983, there must be a deprivation of a protectable property interest).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.”); (holding that this court was not bound by a federal district court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution), aff’d
Dwayne Eugene Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
r time” and that “[s]etting an arbitrary d eadline does not achieve the Legislature’s goal of protecting the public while also ensuring that individuals seeking treatment receive the best care possible.” Government action is arbitrary if it is “so egregious and irrational that the action exceeds standards of inadvertence and mere errors of law.” (quotation omitted) (discussing standard 12 for unconstitutionally arbitrary action in zoning context).
Brian Winczewski, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that a 10 CUP is a protected property right that runs with the affected land).
Steven R. Saba v. City of Fridley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven R. Saba v. City of Fridley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joshua Royce Holmquist. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joshua Royce Holmquist. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.” Id.; (noting that state trial court was not bound by federal district court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution), aff’d
In the Matter of the Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, St. Luke's Hospital, North … 867 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, St. Luke's Hospital, North … 867 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Citizens for a aff’d, Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 1986).
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: The Application of Living Word Bible Camp for a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: The Application of Living Word Bible Camp for a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whitefish Area Property Owners Association, Relators v. Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners, Minnesota-Iowa Baptist Conference Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whitefish Area Property Owners Association, Relators v. Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners, Minnesota-Iowa Baptist Conference Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Minnesota recognizes a constitutionally protected property interest in an application for a land use permit which, as here, is conditioned only upon compliance with the zoning ordinance.”).
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
We are not bound to follow Eighth Circuit precedent, aff 'd, but we note that the Eighth Circuit reversed the federal district court’s denial of Long’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Long v. Humphrey, 184 F.3d 758 (8th Cir.1999).
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(noting state courts are not bound by federal court decisions even as to construction of federal statutes), aff'd, Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc., , 691 n. 1 (Minn.App.1986) (noting although statutory construction of federal law by federal courts is entitled to due respect, this court is bound only by statutory interpretations of Minnesota Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court), review denied (Minn.
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In doing so, we consider, “first, whether there has been a deprivation of a protectable property interest and, second, whether the deprivation, if any, is the result of an abuse of governmental power sufficient to state a constitutional violation.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church 672 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church 672 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Regner v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 652 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Regner v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 652 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
ter city council ordered preparation of an EAW, applicant seeks order requiring city to grant license without preparation of an EAW); -56 (Minn.1992) (citizens group seeks declaratory judgment that retail project would violate Minnesota Environmental Rights Act if completed according to city council’s rezoning); -87 (Minn.1991) (property owner alleges violation of due process rights arising from city’s refusal to grant conditional use permit).
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(noting state courts not bound by *488 federal court decisions even as to construction of federal statutes), ajfd Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc., , 691 n. 1 (Minn.App.1986) (noting although statutory construction of federal law by federal courts is entitled to due respect, this court is bound only by statutory interpretations of Minnesota Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court), review denied (Minn.
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
Zeman v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Zeman v. City of Minneapolis 540 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(zoning action adopting the Eighth Circuit’s test for substantive due process violation in the context of § 1983).
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 537 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kottschade v. City of Rochester 537 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 603-08 (8th Cir.1986)).
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Norwest Bank, NA 529 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Norwest Bank, NA 529 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(state courts are not bound by federal court decisions even as to the construction of a federal statute), aff'd Jendro v. Honeywell, Inc., , 691 n. 1 (Minn.App.1986) (although statutory construction of federal law by federal courts is entitled to due respect, this court is bound only by the statutory interpretations of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court), pet.