Legal Opinion
Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasdy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 20, 1956No. 36,937PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dell, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from an order and also the judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County granting a peremptory writ of mandamus.
The facts are not in dispute. On September 20, 1955, the village council of Golden Valley adopted a comprehensive zoning code in which the tract of land involved in the instant case, consisting of approximately 105 acres, was included within a district classified as “open development.” An ordinance altering and amending the zoning code was adopted by the village council on February 7, 1956. Under the amendment the tract here involved was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Detroit Lakes v. City of Detroit LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Gunderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- State ex rel. Zien v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- STATE EX REL. GOPHER SALES CO. v. City of AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of KentwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Martinco v. HastingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- West v. City of PortageMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Breckweg v. KnochenmusSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
- Curry v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.