Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Dickson, 656 N.W.2d 383.

51 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application of Jason Kitzman and Rani Kitzman for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review a county’s decision to approve a CUP independently to see whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision, or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”
Patrick A Lease, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Our standard of review is a deferential one, as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” (upholding county board’s grant of CUP, even when planning commission recommended denial, because board’s decision was supported by evidence ); see also Big Lake Ass’n v. St.
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In other words, “[t]hese quasi-judicial proceedings do not invoke the full panoply of procedures required in regular judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, many of which would be plainly inappropriate in these quasi-judicial settings.” Barton Contracting, d at 716; d 383, 388 (Minn. 2003) (noting that the quality of evidence and testimony in a quasi-judicial proceeding does “not have to meet full judicial standards”).
In the Matter of the Application of Arbor Creek Holdings, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Application of Dairy Ridge, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This court reviews the county board’s decision “to see whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision, or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”
KSR Investment, LLC, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that “in quasi-judicial hearings the quality of evidence and testimony does not have to meet full judicial standards”).
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roselawn Cemetery v. City of 4 Roseville
In the Matter of Stevens County for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1; (“[C]ounties may approve conditional uses if the applicant satisfies the standards set out in the county ordinance.”).
In the Matter of the Application of Jim Goodpaster and Sherry Timmermann Goodpaster for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We independently review the county board’s decision “to see whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision, or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”
Roger Francis Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
see also Big Lake Ass’n, d at 491 (requiring judicial restraint except in “rare case s where there is no rational basis for the [zoning] decision”).
Thomas Behrends, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Because the party seeking review of the decision bears the burden of showing that the board of adjustment acted unreasonably, we address each of Behrends’ arguments challenging the board’s decision.
In the Matter of the Application of USS Great River Solar LLC for an Interim Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Our standard of review is a deferential one, as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” see also Big Lake Ass’ n v. St.
Lawrence J. Culligan, et al., Trustees of Lawrence J. Culligan Revocable Trust under Agreement dated June 21, 2001, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Application of Impact Power Solutions, LLC and MN CSG 2019-29 LLC for a … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Application of East River Electric Cooperative for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 DECISION We review the grant of a CUP under a deferential standard because “counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Almir Puce, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of Application Number 2020-006782, Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A21-0106 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of: Jill Moore, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan
In the Matter of the Application of United States Solar Corporation and USS Water Fowl Solar LLC for … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Watonwan, n.4 (Minn. 2003).
Thomas Tulien, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Application of Tillman Infrastructure LLC, Norman Westerlund, and Laurie Westerlund for a Conditional … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Id.; d 383, 389 n.4 ( Minn. 2003) (no ting that the supreme court has usually applied a more deferential standard of review to CUP approvals).
In the Matter of the Application of Chris Bolton for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The standard of review for such decisions is deferential, as counties “have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
In the Matter of the Application of Uniti Towers LLC for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schwardt v. County of Watonwan , 389 n.4 (Minn. 2003).
In Regards to the Conditional Use Permit Application of Mark H. Bauman. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N We review the grant of a CUP under a deferential standard because counties have “wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” Schwardt v. C ounty of Watonwan
In the Matter of the Application of Chase and Chelsey Meadows for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The standard of review is deferential, “as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” Schwardt v. C ounty of Watonwan
Simanski Metals, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Our standard of review is a deferential one, as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
In re An Order Finding Certain Facts and Ordering the Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The standard of review is deferential, “as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” Schwardt v. County of Watonwan
In the Matter of the Application of Park Rapids Clay Dusters, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N The standard of review of a gra nt of a conditional-use permit is deferential because counties have “wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.” Schwardt v. County of Watonwan
In re An Order Finding Certain Facts and Ordering the Denial of a Conditional Use Permit United States … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The standard of review is deferential, as counties “have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
In re Order Approving the Application by DG Minnesota CSG 2, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review a county’s decision to approve a CUP independently to see whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision, or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously .”
Kristi Rosenquist, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota Solar, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While our standard of review of a denial of a CUP is less deferential than that of a grant, n.4 (Minn. 2003), appellate review is nevertheless “limited and deferential.” Perschbacher, d at 644.
Brian Winczewski, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court independently reviews a county’s decision regarding a CUP to determine whether the decision had a reasonable basis, “or whether the county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”
Thomas Davison, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The standard of review is deferential, as counties “have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
Agate Lake Association, et al. Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Our standard of review is a deferential one, as counties have wide latitude in making decisions about special use permits.”
Brian Winczewski, Relator v. Becker County Board of Commissioners, Osage Sportsman Club, Inc., n/k/a Osage Sportsmens Club, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Hortian, Relators v. Darren E. Fischer, Wright County Planning Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tammy Loncorich, Relators v. Kevin Buss, McLeod County Board of Commissioners 868 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Klockmann, Relators v. Le Sueur County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: The Application of Living Word Bible Camp for a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.4 (Minn. 2003) (noting that “[w]e have traditionally held CUP approvals to a more deferential standard of review than CUP denials”).
Cory Axelson, Relator v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington 861 N.W.2d 71 Minn. 2015
Whitefish Area Property Owners Association, Relators v. Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners, Minnesota-Iowa Baptist Conference Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.4 (Minn. 2003) (noting that “[w]e have traditionally held CUP approvals to a more deferential standard of review than CUP denials”).
David Vigstol, Relators v. Isanti County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
389 n. 4 (Minn.2003) (noting that “[w]e have traditionally held CUP approvals to a more deferential standard of review than CUP denials”).
Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass'n v. Becker County Board of Commissioners 738 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
389 n. 4 (Minn.2003) (citing Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Bd.
In Re Block 727 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bartheld v. County of Koochiching 716 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(CUP denial); (quasi-judicial zoning decisions).