Legal Opinion
Parranto Bros., Inc. v. City of New Brighton
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 24, 1988No. C4-87-2423PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge.
Parrante Brothers, Inc. appeals the decision of the district court, which found the City of New Brighton’s decision to rezone the subject property was a valid exercise of its legislative power. The court also found that the rezoning did not constitute a taking of appellant’s property. We affirm.
FACTS
In February 1975, appellant Parrante Brothers, Inc. (Parrante) purchased an interest in the subject property. At the time of the purchase, the property was undeveloped and zoned B-3, General Business. The property consisted of 6.3 acres (3.8 acres of dry ground and 2.5…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Honn v. City of Coon RapidsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Armour and Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. Inver Grove Heights, a Minnesota Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of BloomingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Smith Investment Co. v. Sandy CityCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1998
- Woodbury Place Partners v. City of WoodburyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Hay v. City of AndoverCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.