Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Myron v. City of Plymouth, 581 N.W.2d 815.

24 citing documents.

Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
A regulatory taking occurs when the government “goes too far in its regulation, so as to unfairly diminish the value of the individual’s property, thus causing the individual to bear the burden rightly borne by the public.” Wensmann, d at 632 () (internal quotation marks omitted).
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
17 (1998), which 11 defines contamination values); Westling v. C ounty of Mille Lacs, (considering “the constitutionality of an unusual tax provision that functions to recapture property taxes lost when the assessed value of a parcel of property is reduced due to environmental contamination”); Moorhead Econ.
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-23 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d, overruled on other grounds by Wensmann Realty
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
of Mille Lacs , (stating that “imperfection is not a constitutional defect”).
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
A regulatory taking occurs when the government “goes too far in its regulation, so as to unfairly diminish the value of the individual’s property, thus causing the individual to bear the burden rightly borne by the public.” (quotation omitted).
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
McLane Minnesota, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 773 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2009
Irongate Enterprises Inc. v. County of St. Louis 736 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2007
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
“The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute bears the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a constitutional right.” (quotation marks omitted).
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
5 The purpose of the Takings Clause “is to ensure that the government does not require ‘some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ ” (quoting Zeman, d at 552).
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
ILHC of Eagan, -22 (Minn.2005), (when the challenged statute does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right, the appropriate standard of review is rational basis).
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 685 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Explained Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Salomone 682 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 2004
We have stated that that “[e]ven if the classification scheme is imperfectly related to the legislature’s objectives, imperfection is not a constitutional defect.”
Kammueller v. Kammueller 672 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council v. Smith 667 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
820 (Minn.1998) (stating that neither clause is more restrictive); Little Earth of United Tribes, (finding that both clauses are “equally restrictive of the legislature’s power to tax and to classify”).
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Walker v. Zuehlke 642 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2002
McNamara v. Office of Strategic & Long Range Planning 628 N.W.2d 620 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(providing the challenger has the burden of establishing -beyond a reasonable doubt that state action violates a constitutional right).
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
V. 6 “[A] constructive taking occurs when the state, in the exercise of its police power, * * * unfairly diminishes the value of the individual’s property, thus causing the individual to bear the burden rightly borne by the public.” (citation omitted).
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 602 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
*903 (Minn.1998) (citation omitted), cert.
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Just as knowledge of a zoning ordinance does not bar granting a variance, (holding that actual or constructive knowledge of a zoning ordinance before purchase of land is not a self-created hardship), aff'd, a landowner’s mistaken belief about a zoning ordinance is not a bar to granting a variance.