Legal Opinion
Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 17, 1992No. C2-92-670PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
The City of Woodbury challenges the trial court’s determination that, on its face, an interim moratorium on development effected a taking of property without just compensation. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
This appeal focuses on 505,533 square feet of unimproved land zoned for commercial use in the northwest corner of the intersection of Interstate 494 and Valley Creek Road in Woodbury, Minnesota. Woodbury Place Partners purchased an undivided one-half interest in the property, including all rights in this litigation, in December 1987, and in January 1990 purchased all…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Zeman v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1999
- Williams v. City of CentralColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
- Keshbro, Inc. v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.