Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 513 N.W.2d 460.

39 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of Jim Goodpaster and Sherry Timmermann Goodpaster for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Although a county board is not required to prepare formal findings of fact, it must, at a minimum, “have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” Earthburners, (quotation omitted).
Thomas Behrends, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
While a zoning body need not prepare formal findings of fact, it is, at a minimum , required to “have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” Earthburners, (quoting White Bear Rod & ).
In the Matter of the Application of Uniti Towers LLC for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mathew Davis, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In resolving a variance application, the board of adjustment “must articulate the reasons for its ultimate decision, with specific reference to relevant provisions of its zoning ordinance.” Earthburners
LeRoy J. Rossow, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Along with a clearly articulated rationa le for its decision, specific reference to the local ordinance is essential to fac ilitate effective judicial review.” Earthburners
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
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Continental Property Group, LLC v. City of Wayzata Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
Johnson v. Cook County 786 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
KRUMMENACHER v. City of Minnetonka 783 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2010
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
In Re Stadsvold 754 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2008
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Earthburners, (reversing and remanding CUP denial because board did not state the rationale for its decision with specific reference to relevant provisions of ordinance governing determination of these permits).
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge 693 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2005
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge 693 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2005
See Earthburners, (ordering remand to county board to “reopen” zoning proceedings, to hear from all interested parties, “and ultimately to allow the board to articulate the reasons for whatever action it takes”); White Bear Rod & -43 (Minn.1986) (remanding to city counci
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan 656 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 2003
CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 633 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 633 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
of Comm’rs, , *566 580 (Minn.2000); Earthburners, (reviewing board “must confine its inquiry to those issues raised in [the] earlier proceedings”); White Bear Rod & (city council not required to make formal findings but, at a minimum, must “ ‘have the reasons for its decision recorded or r
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
The court explained that the Nobles County zoning ordinance requires the Board to make specific findings in granting a CUP and that Earthburners, requires a county board to make written findings explaining its rationale when it denies a CUP, with specific reference to relevant provisions of the zoning ordinance.
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
See, e.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); VanLandschoot v. City
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
First, it argues that the court of appeals failed to follow our decision in Earthburners, by ordering that the permit be issued rather than allowing the county to develop a record and articulate its findings and conclusions.
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“Along with a clearly articulated rationale for its decision, specific reference to the local ordinance is essential to facilitate effective judicial review.” Earthburners
Shetka v. Aitkin County 541 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Shetka v. Aitkin County 541 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Earthburners, (remanding a conditional use permit application to the county board because the county board had denied the application without articulating the basis for denial), provided that county board decisions may be appealed to the district court, just as the Shoreland Management Ordinance provides.
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994