Legal Opinion

Carlson v. Chermak

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 26, 2002No. C8-01-1475PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge. *

Appellant landowner Dorothy Carlson unsuccessfully sought a variance from respondent Douglas County’s shoreland development ordinance. She did not appeal the denial by the Douglas County Board of Adjustment (BOA), but five months later, after the 30-day statutory period for appeal had run, she commenced this declaratory-judgment action challenging the applicability and enforceability of the shoreland ordinance to her property. The district court assumed subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the action on the merits, concluding the ordinance was applicable to Carlson…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. County of Freeborn v. ClaussenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  3. Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  4. Davidner v. DavidnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Neitzel v. County of RedwoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. GrigsbyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
  2. Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API