Legal Opinion
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 20, 2010No. A09-1961PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s conclusion that it is prevented by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from requiring respondents to relocate a shed they built on their property in 2006. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondents Drs. Rajbir and Carol Sar-pal purchased a lot located in appellant City of North Oaks in July 2003. A short while later, they constructed a home on the lot. In 2005, they had an in-ground swimming pool installed. The Sarpals hired professionals to build their home and install…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Ridgewood Development Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Mesaba Aviation Division of Halvorson of Duluth, Inc. v. County of ItascaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of North Oaks v. SarpalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017