Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205.

24 citing documents.

Amanda Buxton, as trustee for the next-of-kin Tom Buxton, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Coyle v. City of Delano , .
Troy K Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will reverse a district court’s order on a petition for mandamus relief only when “there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the trial court’s findings.”
14 Cherrywood, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy.” Mendota Golf, d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted); d 205, 207 (Minn. App. 1995) (requiring petitioners to demonstrate that they possess no other adequate legal remedy before mandamus can issue).
EMERGE Community Development, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To obtain a writ of mandamus “[a] petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the failure of an official duty clearly imposed by law; (2) a public wrong specifically injurious to petitioner; and (3 ) no other adequate specific legal remedy.”
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A peremptory writ is appropriate when “the right to require performance of the act is clear, and no valid excuse for nonperformance can be given.”
Ralph A. Fredlund v. Eureka Township Board of Supervisors Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ralph A. Fredlund v. Eureka Township Board of Supervisors Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 205, 208 (Minn. App. 1995).
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1 On appeal, we will reverse a district court’s order on a petition for mandamus relief “only when there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the [district] court’s findings.”
Breza v. City of Minnetrista 706 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Breza v. City of Minnetrista 706 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
B. Mandamus We will reverse a district court’s order on a petition for mandamus relief “only when there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the trial court’s findings.”
Nolan and Nolan v. City of Eagan 673 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Nolan and Nolan v. City of Eagan 673 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
On appeal, this court will reverse a district court’s order on an application for mandamus relief “only when there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the trial court’s findings.”
Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. City of Chanhassen 663 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. City of Chanhassen 663 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Walther v. Lundberg 654 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Walther v. Lundberg 654 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
ANALYSIS Ordinarily, on appeal, we will reverse a district court’s order on an application for mandamus relief “only when there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the trial court’s findings.”
Demolition Landfill Services, LLC v. City of Duluth 609 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Demolition Landfill Services, LLC v. City of Duluth 609 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Vern Reynolds Construction, Inc. v. City of Champlin 539 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and should only issue upon a showing that a party has suffered harm that is “direct, substantial, and peculiar * * * in that it differs markedly from the damage suffered by the public at large.” Alevizos, 298 Minn. at 485 , d at 661 ; (“Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles.”) An appellate court should reverse a district court’s grant