Legal Opinion
Harstad v. City of Woodbury
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided September 18, 2017No. A16-1937PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRATVOLD, Judge
In this declaratory-judgment action, appellant/cross-respondent city challenges the district court’s ruling that its road assessment is unlawful. By notice of related appeal, respondent/cross-appellant developer challenges the district court’s determinations that its temporary regulatory-takings claim is moot, and that its subdivision application was not approved by operation of law under Minn. Stat. §§ 15.99, subd. 2(a), and 462.358, subd. 3b (2016). We affirm the district court’s judgment on all claims.
FACTS
Appellant/cross-respondent City of Woodbury (the city) has…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Murr v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Harstad v. City of WoodburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018