Legal Opinion
Tuckner v. Township of May
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 1, 1988No. C9-87-1915PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDWARD D. MULALLY, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment affirming a decision of the Washington County Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the Board), which denied appellants Richard and June Tuckner’s request for a variance. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants own Lots 74, 75, 76, and 77, Block 2, Camelian Hills, which are contiguous parcels of land situated on Big Came-lian Lake in Washington County. Appellants’ home is located on Lot 77. Lot 76 has a cabin which appellants rent out as a seasonal dwelling. Lots 74 and 75, which are considered to be one parcel, also have a cabin…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of RosevilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota HeightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- County of Freeborn v. ClaussenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Hawkinson v. County of ItascaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Odell v. City of EaganCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- County of Lake v. CourtneyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of MoorheadCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Nolan v. City of Eden PrairieCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Sagstetter v. City of St. PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995