Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264.

38 citing documents.

Lake West Development LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Grp., (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, d at 608-09), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Patrick A Lease, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Grp., (first citing Frank’s 11 Nursery Sales, - 09 (Minn. 1980), and then citing Med.
In re: County Board action notice on interim use permit request to operate a kennel on Parcel Number … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“A city council is free to disregard an expert’s opinion when it is presented with co nflicting non-experts’ opinions, including those of area residents, so long as the reasons are concrete and based on observations, not merely on fear or speculation.”); SuperAmerica Grp., Inc. v. City of Little Canada , (identifying cases where nonexpert, landowners’ opinions were preferred over expert opinions), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of Application Number 2020-006782, Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In particular, a zoning authority “may consider neighborhood opposition if based on concrete 23 information.” SuperAmerica Grp., 7 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Application of United States Solar Corporation and USS Water Fowl Solar LLC for … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Little Canada, -68 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re An Order Finding Certain Facts and Ordering the Denial of a Conditional Use Permit United States … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In making its decision, a board may not “reject expert testimon y without adequate supporting reasons.” SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
Basim Sabri, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
SuperAmerica Grp., Inc. v. City of Little Canada , 7-68 (Minn. App. 1995) (addressing consideration of neighborhood opposition based on traffic congestion) , review denied (Minn. Jan.
Minnesota Solar, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-68 (Minn. App. 1995) (stating that CUP may be denied 9 “if the proposed use would adversely affect the general welfare,” that neighborhood opposition may be considered “if based on c oncrete information,” and that “residents expressed more than a vague concern about future neighborhood problems”), review
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619 883 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-68 (Minn. App. 1995) (stating that CUP may be denied “if the proposed use would adversely affect the general welfare,” that neighborhood opposition may be considered “if based on concrete information,” and that “residents expressed more than a vague concern about future neighborhood problems”), review denied
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
(“A city council is free to disregard an expert’s opinion when it is presented with conflicting non-experts’ opinions, including those of area residents, so long as the reasons are concrete and based on observations, not merely on fear or speculation.”); SuperAmerica Grp., d 264, 267 (Minn. App. 1995) (listing cases involving preference for non-expert, landowners’ opinions over expert opinions), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“A zoning ordinance should be construed (1) according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, (2) in favor of the property owner, and (3) in light of the ordinance’s underlying policy goals.” SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
The county argues that SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista 694 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
See SuperAmerica Group, (stating “city council may deny a conditional use permit only for reasons relating to the public health, safety, and general welfare or for incompatibility with a city’s land use plan”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 675 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 675 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Interpretation of Ordinances “A zoning ordinance should be construed (1) according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, (2) in favor of the property owner, and (3) in light of the ordinance’s underlying policy goals.” SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of … 664 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of … 664 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
See SuperAmerica Group, Inc., a Div. of Ashland Oil, -67 (Minn.App.1995); Minn.Stat.
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
386 (Minn.2003); see also SuperAmerica Group, (stating conditional use permit denial will be disturbed only where it has “no rational basis”) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 656 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 656 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When making its decision, a municipality “may not reject expert testimony without adequate supporting reasons.” SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
Beca of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 607 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Beca of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 607 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
A decision-making entity “may not reject expert testimony without adequate supporting reasons.” SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
SuperAmerica Group, Inc., v. City of Little Canada, review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
Hubbard, d at 763 ; SuperAmerica Group, review denied (Minn. Jan.