Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission, 601 N.W.2d 461.

26 citing documents.

ROA Rochester, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Comm’n, , 467 -468 (Minn. App. 1999) (stating that neither the 23 landowner’s mistaken knowledge of a zoning ordinance nor the decision to purchase adjacent lots, which imposed the hardship, constituted unique circumstances ).
State of Minnesota, by Spring Valley Friends, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Comm’n, -65 (Minn. App. 1999) (reaffirming Saldana); Hecker v. Crow Wing Cnty.
In the Matter of the Application of Jim Goodpaster and Sherry Timmermann Goodpaster for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Comm’n, and we will not overturn a county board’s decision simply because we may have come to a different conclusion.
Thomas Behrends, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of Application Number 2020-006782, Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Thomas Hecker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Cheryl L. Stinski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Planning Comm’n, and in support of her position.
Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Aim Dev. (Usa), LLC v. City of Sartell 925 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Planning Comm'n , , 466 (Minn. App. 1999) (determining that the county was "pursuing a legitimate governmental purpose" in restricting residential use of land and establishing standard lot sizes).
Ellis Olkon, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Brian Winczewski, Relator v. Becker County Board of Commissioners, Osage Sportsman Club, Inc., n/k/a Osage Sportsmens Club, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brian Winczewski, Relator v. Becker County Board of Commissioners, Osage Sportsman Club, Inc., n/k/a Osage Sportsmens Club, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Planning Comm’n, d 461, 467 (Minn. App. 1999), that even if the findings are inadequate, we may examine the record to determine if the evidence supports the county’s decision.
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
9, requires “written notice of a board of adjustment’s variance decision to commence the running of the 30-day limitations period for appeal.”
In Re Block 727 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Block 727 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Thiele, d at 582-83 ; Graham v. Itasca County Planning Comm’n, (applying Thiele to issues raised for the first time on appeal of zoning decision).
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
informs our decision here.
Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Carlson v. Chermak 639 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., Graham v. Itasca Co. Planning Comm’n, (district court’s appellate jurisdiction over denial of variance included constitutionality of ordinance and reasonableness of county’s action).
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
at 53 ; cf. Graham v. Itasca County Planning Comm’n, (relying, in part, on Judicial Ditch No. 2 in construing a similar statute).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by