Legal Opinion · Concurrence

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 18, 2015No. A13-0310Published

1ConcurrenceAnderson, Justice

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by denying the conditional use permit as “injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm[ful to] the public health, safety and welfare.” I am not impressed with the strength of the City’s argument, and am particularly struck by the willingness of the City to ignore the long-standing use of the property by RDNT, a use that predates the arrival of the neighbors now complaining about traffic. That said, given our deferential standard of review, I would affirm on the grounds advanced by the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, and Village of Mount Prospect and Forest View Civic Association, InterveningCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
  3. Zylka v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. Urrutia v. Blaine CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Baker v. City of MilwaukieOregon Supreme Court · 1975

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API