Legal Opinion
Appeal of Krenik
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 22, 2016No. A15-1566PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WORKE, Judge.
Relator argues that his use of tarps and a fence is sufficient to meet the screening requirements of Minn.Stat. § 168.10, subd. le. Relator also argues that the St. Paul City Council’s determination upholding a vehicle-abatement order is arbitrary. We affirm.
FACTS
On May 6, 2015, John Ross, an inspector with the City of St. Paul Department of Safety and Inspections, visited relator John Krenik’s property after receiving a complaint regarding several vehicles that had not been moved in six months. In Krenik’s driveway, Ross observed a Buick without current license tabs and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Zylka v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of AftonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Noble v. MurphyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993
- White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of HugoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Village of Brady v. MelcherNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Appeal of KrenikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Mohamed Shaaban Sultan, Relator v. City of St. PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024