Legal Opinion
In Re Livingood
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 17, 1999No. C2-98-262PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, J.
Respondent Russell Livingood applied to appellant Renville County for a conditional use permit to expand his confinement hog facilities. The county denied the permit, and Livingood filed a writ of cer-tiorari in the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the county, concluding that the county lacked sufficient evidence to support the denial, and remanded the case with directions to issue the permit. The county then filed a petition for further review with this court, requesting that the remand be modified to allow the county to articulate…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mattfeld v. NesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of ChanhassenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of ShoreviewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of HugoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- In Re StadsvoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- KRUMMENACHER v. City of MinnetonkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. PaulsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.