Cited by

” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

In conducting this review, we recognize that Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional is exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” Campbell, d at 268 (quotation and citation omitted); see also Hard Times Cafe, (“Courts should exercise extreme caution before declaring a statute void for vagueness.”); Council of Indep.

“Vague statutes are prohibited under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted); U.S. Const. amend.

Our review is confined “to the record before the city council at the time it made its decision.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

But “the use of general language in a statute does not make it vague.” Hard Times Cafe, -72 (Minn. App. 2001).

Hard Times Cafe, -72 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted).

“A statute is void due to vagueness if it defines an act in a manner that encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, or the law is so indefinite that people must guess at its meaning.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted); see also In re Minn. Dep’t of Nat.

Cf. Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis , (applying judicial-review provisions of MAPA because city attorney notified party that hearing would be conducted in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57-.62).

Our review is confined “to the record before the city council at the time it made its decision.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

See Hard Times Cafe, (“Vague statutes are prohibited under the due process c lause of the fourteenth amendment.” (quotation omitted) ).

Frenz, as a party “challenging the constitutionality of a stat ute on vagueness grounds[,] must show the ordinan ce lacks specificity as to its own behavior rather than some hypothetical situation.” Hard Times Cafe v. City of Minneapolis , (quotatio n omitted).

We presume that a municip al ordinance is constitutional, and “[t]he burden of proving that an ordinance is unreasonable rests on the party attacking its validity.” Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis , (quotation omitted).

See Hard Times Café, -72 (Minn. App. 2001).

See Hard Times Café, -72 (Minn. App. 2001) (holding that city ordinance 2003); (finding that the dismissal of only one of two charges had a critical impact on the outcome of the trial).

Vagueness “Courts should exercise extreme caution before declaring a[n] [ordinance] void for vagueness.”

3 Additionally, El Deeb argues that we should transfer his case to a district court to further develop the record and cites to Hard Times Cafe

“The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

Appellants state that their constitutional claims “are both facial and as applied.” “The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law[,] which this court reviews de novo.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

“The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law [that] this court reviews de novo.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

See Hard Times Cafe, -74 (Minn.App.2001) (transferring case to district court to consider ex parte contacts and irregular procedures).

Relator suggests that Hard Times Cafe, supports its argument that this matter should be remanded.

“Courts should exercise extreme caution before declaring a statute void for vagueness.” Hard Times Cafe, (citation omitted).

“The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.” Hard Times Cafe, (quotation omitted).

Hard Times Café, (quotation omitted).

§ 14.69 (2000) (enumerating criteria for judicial review of agency decisions); In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis (applying principles of Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act to city councils).

See, e.g., Hard Times Café, -74 (Minn.App.2001).