Legal Opinion
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 30, 2012No. A11-2030PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WRIGHT, Judge.
Appellant county appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss for *184lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that respondents did not perfect their appeal within the 30-day statutory period because respondents served their notice of appeal on the wrong parties. We affirm.
FACTS
Skyline Materials, Ltd. owns a rock quarry adjacent to property owned by respondents Michael and Diane Fields. Skyline applied to appellant Houston County (the county) for a variance from the setback requirements of the county zoning ordinance. Following a hearing on that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sinclair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Marzitelli v. City of Little CanadaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Roehrdanz v. BrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- St. Malachy Roman Catholic Congregation of Geneseo, Illinois Steve Bristol Conni Bristol and Kewanee Area United Way v. Donna K. Ingram, as of the Estate of James Ingram, and Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2013
- In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Elbert v. TlamCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013