Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zeman v. City of Minneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 548.

32 citing documents.

Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
See, e.g., Wensmann, d at 632–42; Westling, d at 823–24; State ex rel.
EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, e.g., DeCook v. Rochester Int’l Airport Joint Zoning Bd., (airport zoning ordinance); (city zoning ordinance); Pratt v. State, Dep’t of Nat.
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-54 (Minn. 1996) (reasoning that license revocation interfered with landlord’s 16 investment-backed expectations when he had been operating his property as a rental dwelling for over 15 years).
Carvin Buzzell, Jr., Minn. 2022
Critically, Buzzell himself does not make a constitutional takings argument on appeal, taking the position that “[i]n takings jurisprudence, a regulation that ‘is a proper effort to protect the health, morals, or safety of the community which ha s the effect of prohibiting a particular use of a property ’ is not a ‘taking.’ ” ().
Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson 929 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2019
Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson 929 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2019
See City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , , 166-67 (Minn. 2017) ; Zeman v. City of Minneapolis , , 554 (Minn. 1996).
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 811 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2012
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 811 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2012
As a result, inverse condemnation is an appropriate remedy for a property owner whose property has been taken, if only temporarily, by government regulation.
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
Our analysis “relies heavily on reasoning by analogy to previous takings cases,” , 552 n. 3 (Minn.1996), and we rely upon our cases interpreting and analyzing the Minnesota Constitution when property owners have sought compensation under its provisions.
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
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
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chenoweth v. City of New Brighton 655 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The Takings Clause in the Minnesota Constitution ensures that the government cannot force ‘some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ (citing Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 , 80 S.Ct.
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 649 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 649 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
As a result, analysis of such takings cases “often relies heavily on reasoning by analogy to previous takings cases.” , 552 n. 3 (Minn.1996).
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
ing to warn of the dangerous condition); (landowners challenge city-imposed lateral benefit water fee); Country Joe, (home building contractors challenge city’s decision to impose road unit connection charge as a condition of issuance of building permits); (property owner challenges city's revocation of rental dwelling license); (landowners seek declaration of the invalidity of city’s zoning ordinances); (bar owner challenges constitut
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citing Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 225 , 106 S.Ct.
City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl 607 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl 607 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, 555 (Minn.1996) (holding actions by city of revoking rental dwelling license did not constitute taking requiring compensation because ordinance served public harm prevention purpose); (addressing inverse condemnation claim brought in district court
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
First, “[i]f the regulation is drawn to prevent harm to the public, broadly defined, and seems able to achieve this goal, then a taking has not occurred.” (citing Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 488-93 , 107 S.Ct.
Westling v. County of Mille Lacs 581 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1998
Westling v. County of Mille Lacs 581 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1998
e Minnesota Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property shall not be taken * * * for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured.” The purpose underlying these provisions is to ensure that the government does not require “some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 , 80 S.Ct.
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Minneapolis, (takings clause of state constitution applies only to state action).