Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66.

33 citing documents.

EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Brad Hammerberg, as Trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust dated June 23, 2005, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
), or when an administrative body “has no intention of ever” granting any relief sought by a plaintiff, - 72 (Minn. 1984).
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (noting that many land use classifications may apply to a single plot of land).
Andrew Ellis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Thomas Davison, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Uckun v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice 733 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
It is a “long-settled rule that no one is entitled to injunctive protection against the actual or threatened acts of an administrative agency until” all administrative remedies have been exhausted, unless exhaustion of administrative remedies will cause “imminent and irreparable harm.” Thomas v. Ramberg, 240 Minn. 1, 4-5 , (noting that generally party “must first exhaust the administrative remedies available before bringing an action for judicial review”); City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, (s
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 728 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2007
9, 414-15 (Minn.1981) (" 'As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.’ ” (quoting State by Rochester Ass’n )); (stating that the failure of a city to advance any rationale for not following its comprehensive plan is strong evidence of arbitrary action).
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has specifically held that when a municipality refuses to rezone because it would be inconsistent with its comprehensive land-use plan, that action does not, “without evidence to the contrary, constitute arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the [city] council.” Sun Oil Co., 300 Minn. at 337 , d at 263 ; (holding that refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is evidence that city’s action was arbitrary).
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
(“The city’s own comprehensive plan and map designate the property at issue as roadside business.
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
See, (failure to advance rationale for zoning decision indicates arbitrary action); Arcadia Dev.
Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed District 639 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed District 639 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage 487 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage 487 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine 385 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[Wjhere a municipality acts in its factfinding or legislative policymaking capacity under its delegated powers the scope of review is very narrow, ‘subject only to the broad limits of the “arbitrary and capricious” standard * * V ” (quoting Frank’s Nursery Sales, ).
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1984