Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416.

29 citing documents.

Minnesota Department of Corrections, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2 7 (defining agency), 3 (defining contested case), .63 (governing judicial review of decisions in contested cases); (holding that “there is no contested case here and no judicial review under [] MAPA”); (explaining that “[t]he county, not having statewide jurisdiction, is not subject to [MAPA]”).
Eric Ringsred, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin , ().
Eric Ringsred, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State by Powderly v. Erickson
Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 116B.04(b) ; State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin , , 421 (Minn. 1993).
Tina Stringer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-21 (Minn. 1993) (analyzing the applicability o f MAPA ).
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To maintain an action under MERA, a plaintiff must make “a prima facia showing that the conduct of the defendant has, or is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state.” Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 (2014); d 416, 421 (Minn. 1993).
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Relocation Benefits of James Bros. Furniture, Inc. 642 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Relocation Benefits of James Bros. Furniture, Inc. 642 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
2 (2000); and the parties did not elect to be bound by the APA's appeal procedure.
Stansell v. City of Northfield 618 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stansell v. City of Northfield 618 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth 563 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1997
State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth 563 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1997
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
(county is not agency under MAPA because it lacks statewide jurisdiction).
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Minn. Stat. § 14.02 (1994) (defining agency as having statewide jurisdiction); (MAPA only applies to agencies boards and the like having statewide jurisdiction).
Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources 531 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources 531 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
6 (1992); (government action reversed for failure to show lack of feasible alternative construction site).
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See, (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building county jail on historic site); Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building highway over a lake); Minnesota Public Interest Group v. White Bear
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin 505 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1993
State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin 505 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1993
The Hennepin County District Court, by orders dated May 11, 1992, and May 15, 1992, authorized a closed settlement conference between appellants, County of Hennepin (County) and City of Minneapolis (City), (the Armory lawsuit), then on appeal to this court.