Legal Opinion
St. Louis Park Post No. 5632 v. City of St. Louis Park
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 12, 2004No. A04-500PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.
Appellant Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., instituted a declaratory judgment action, arguing Minn.S.tat. § 173.17(c) (2002) and the federal Highway Beautification Act, 23 U.S.C. § 181(g) (2000), preclude respondent City of St. Louis Park from requiring that a nonconforming billboard be removed as a condition of issuing a conditional use permit. The district court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. Clear Channel appeals from that judgment. We affirm in part and remand.
FACTS
Clear Channel and St. Louis Park VFW Post 5632 entered into a five-year lease…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Myers Through Myers v. PriceCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of LakevilleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Adams Outdoor Adv., Lp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Burkhart Advertising, Inc. v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009