Elbert v. Tlam
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
*449OPINION
LARKIN, Judge.
Appellants challenge the district court’s jurisdictional dismissal of their appeal under Minn.Stat. § 394.27, subd. 9. Because appellants failed to timely serve notice of appeal, the district court correctly concluded that it could not exercise jurisdiction. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
On March 27, 2012, respondent Martin County Board of Adjustment1 granted a variance allowing a company to build hog-production facilities in Martin County. Appellants Douglas and Janice Elbert own property near the proposed hog-production site and were provided notice of the variance on or…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. BarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLPSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Graham v. Itasca County Planning CommissionCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Soyka v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Soyka v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014