Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503.

91 citing documents.

Kismet Investors, Inc. v. County of Benton 617 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
.g., Earthburners, (quoting the county ordinance that states in part that the use should not “be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity ⅜ ⅜ * nor substantially diminish and impair property values;” or “impede the normal and orderly development” of the area); , 507 n. 3 (Minn.1983) ■ (quoting, ordinance that requires council to determine in part that proposed variance will not “endanger the public safety,” “in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, m
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Graham v. Itasca County Planning Commission 601 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
508 n. 6 (Minn.1983); review denied (Minn. Dec.
Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul 529 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul 529 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
Stotts v. Wright County 478 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stotts v. Wright County 478 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
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
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hay v. City of Andover 436 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
for rev. denied (Minn. July 28,1988) ( n. 8 (Minn.1983)).
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
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
Tuckner v. Township of May 419 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tuckner v. Township of May 419 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County of Wright v. Kennedy 415 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Castle Design & Development Co.
In Re the Variance Request of Johnson 404 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Variance Request of Johnson 404 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Castle Design & Development Co. v. City of Lake Elmo 396 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hedlund v. City of Maplewood 366 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedlund v. City of Maplewood 366 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center 352 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
A later case, suggests that in determining the reasonableness of a zoning action, a reviewing court should examine “whether the reasons assigned by the governing body do not have ‘the slightest validity’ or bearing on the welfare of the immediate area...’’ (quoting White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984