Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721.

30 citing documents.

In re: County Board action notice on interim use permit request to operate a kennel on Parcel Number … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of Application Number 2020-006782, Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g. , Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee , , 728 (Minn. App. 1988) (reversing city's denial of conditional-use permit for expansion of gravel pit because decision was arbitrary and capricious), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Appeal of John Krenik to a Vehicle-abatement order at 1270 Cleveland Avenue. 884 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appeal of John Krenik to a Vehicle-abatement order at 1270 Cleveland Avenue. 884 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jeffrey A. August, Relator v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 868 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey A. August, Relator v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 868 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to support his proposition that the county board should not have relied on public comment but, instead, only relied on the zoning department’s staff report.
Volunteers of America-Minnesota v. City of Saint Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Volunteers of America-Minnesota v. City of Saint Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
CEMETERY v. City of Roseville 689 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied, (Minn. Mar.
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Yang v. County of Carver 660 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. Mar.23,1988).
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
On appeal from a trial court’s decision affirming a city council’s denial of a conditional use permit, the appellate court independently reviews “the record which was before the trial court together with the city’s decision without affording any special deference to the trial court’s review.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Claim of City of Mankato v. Mahoney 542 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Claim of City of Mankato v. Mahoney 542 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See White Bear Docking & Storage, (reversing city’s denial of conditional use permit as arbitrary because it lacked legally sufficient reasons), review denied (Minn. Mar.
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
nts Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (holding denial of permit must be based on something more concrete than “non-specific” neighborhood opposition); (holding city may rebut expert testimony with nonex-pert testimony), review denied (Minn. May 23, 1991); (finding city could not prefer landowners’ opinions, without a concrete basis, over experts’ conclusions), review denied (Minn. Mar.
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
NBZ Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 489 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
NBZ Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Shakopee 489 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Scott County Lumber Co., pet.
Northern States Power Co. v. Blue Earth County 473 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Northern States Power Co. v. Blue Earth County 473 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Investments, (reversing denial of conditional use permit to construct multiple unit dwelling because of traffic and parking concerns where developer had agreed to eliminate these problems); (reversing denial of conditional use permit to operate a gravel pit because neighbors opposed it, where all experts recommended granting the permit), pet.
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
The city erroneously relied on an expert who had an obvious conflict of interest and who failed to study the project directly, petition for rev. denied (Minn.1988), rejected the only credible expert studies and recommendations, and, in contravention of this court’s express prohibition, based its decision in part on neighborhood opposition.