Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235.

29 citing documents.

City of St. Cloud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Agency, (citing Oakman v. City of Eveleth , 203 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Agency, 2 Appellant made two arguments to support her governmental-estoppel claim: first, that other protesters in previous protests were not prosecuted and she relied on the government’s inaction in those cases, and second, that the governor, the attorney general, and the mayor had encouraged pea
Clarence Johnson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Agency, see also Wax ‘n Works v. City of St.
In re Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim 930 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim 930 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Agency , , 237 (Minn. App. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Agency, (discussing the limited circumstances in which estoppel is invoked against the government).
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Agency, (applying interpretation to a community development agency); Micius v. St.
Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. City of Chanhassen 663 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. City of Chanhassen 663 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Agency, (final administrative decisions under MURA may only be reviewed by certiorari to this court as provided by Minn.Stat.
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Agency, (distinguishing Shetka because there was no evidence that hearing officer affirmatively misrepresented the proper method of appealing his decision).
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
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Agency, (where possession is held through proper legal channels a conversion claim will not he).
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
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mowry v. Young 565 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mowry v. Young 565 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, (Minn.App.
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 555 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 555 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Agency, (absent explicit authority for review of a local agency’s quasi-judicial decision in district court, a party’s sole remedy is appeal to court of appeals by writ of certiorari), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by