Legal Opinion
Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 15, 1989No. C2-89-643PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COYNE, Justice.
The City of Minnetrista and five individual owners of land within that city challenge a 1988 law authorizing The Suburban Hen-nepin Regional Park District to acquire property for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka without local consent or approval by any affected municipality or other local governmental unit. The challenge to the validity of Act of April 28, 1988, ch. 686, art. 1, § 26, 1988 Minn.Laws 2805-06, (hereinafter called “the park bill”) is two-pronged: (1) that the park bill, to which the City of Minnetrista objects, is a special law subject to the consent…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Johnson v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- In Re TvetenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Wass v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Davies v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- J.L. Shiely Co. v. County of StearnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
3Cited by18 opinions
- Richard T. Van Bergen v. State of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey, Iii, in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. VenturaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992
- Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of HennepinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Caprice v. GomezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.