Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Klapmeier v. Town of Center of Crow Wing County, 346 N.W.2d 133.
-
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
B. Laches The doctrine of laches is intended to “prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” Klapmeier v. Town of Center , (quotation omitted).
- Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Sykes v. City of Rochester 787 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Sykes v. City of Rochester 787 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
In Re the Marriage of Opp
516 N.W.2d 193
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(quoting Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , ).
- Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194
495 N.W.2d 226
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
We agree that this extraordinary cooperation “casts a cloud over the integrity of the process used in awarding the contract.” Ill The purpose of laches is “to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” (quoting Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , ).
- Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Green Electric System, Inc. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 486 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Leisure Hills of Grand Rapids, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 480 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Leisure Hills of Grand Rapids, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 480 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Ruzic v. City of Eden Prairie 479 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Ruzic v. City of Eden Prairie
479 N.W.2d 417
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In re Special Assessment by City of Moorhead, 239 Minn. 351, 356 , Independent Sch.
- In Re Channel Lane 444 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Broadbent v. City of East Bethel 444 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Broadbent v. City of East Bethel 444 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- In Re Channel Lane 444 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Countryside Village v. City of North Branch 442 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1989
-
Countryside Village v. City of North Branch
442 N.W.2d 304
Minn. 1989
However, that failure to mention appeal rights in published and mailed notice given in the course of a special assessment proceeding rendered the notice defective and left the town board without jurisdiction.
- Countryside Village v. City of North Branch 430 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Countryside Village v. City of North Branch 430 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Shortridge v. Daubney 425 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1988
- Shortridge v. Daubney 425 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1988
- Independent School District 254 v. City of Kenyon 411 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Independent School District 254 v. City of Kenyon
411 N.W.2d 545
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(there must be strict compliance with the statutory notice provisions of Minn.Stat.
- Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987