Legal Opinion
Harstad v. City of Woodbury
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 15, 2018No. A16-1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, Justice.
We are asked to decide, in the context of a subdivision-application process, whether Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2a (2016), authorizes a statutory city to impose an infrastructure charge for future road-improvement projects. Respondent Martin Harstad1 submitted an application to appellant City of Woodbury for approval to subdivide and develop a parcel of land. Before he completed his application, Woodbury sent Harstad a memorandum outlining proposed charges for the subdivision, including an infrastructure charge as determined by Woodbury's Major Roadway Assessment program.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Country Joe, Inc. v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Jamy Hegseth f/k/a Jamy Jager v. American Family Mutual Insurance GroupSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Harstad v. City of WoodburyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
3Cited by6 opinions
- McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- Compuware Corp. v. Moody's Investors Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
- Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2023
- City of Baxter v. City of BrainerdCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
- Dennis Walsh v. City of Orono, MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2025
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.