Legal Opinion
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 7, 1996No. C0-95-2027PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
The 614 Company contends that its pleadings successfully state causes of action for (a) a temporary taking of its property by respondents, the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA), requiring compensation under both federal and state constitutions, (b) alternative relief premised on constitutional guarantees of both procedural and substantive due process and of equal protection, (c) common law recovery for the third-party beneficiary of the contract, and (d) tort relief due to negligence or tortious interference with prospective…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of BloomingtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Dayton Development Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Gilman Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
- Kick's Liquor Store, Inc. v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Dayton Development Co. v. Gilman Financial Services, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2003
- Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of RochesterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.