Legal Opinion
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 11, 2006No. Nos. A04-886, A04-890PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.
On July 29, 2003, respondent Kandiyohi County determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not necessary for two gravel pit projects proposed by respondent Duininck Brothers, Inc. Following this determination, appellant Citizens Advocating Responsible Development (CARD), an environmental advocacy group, brought a declaratory judgment action in Kandiyohi County District Court in an effort to overturn the county’s determination. CARD moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court then ordered that an EIS be completed for the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control AgencySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Chiodo v. Board of Education of Special School District No. 1Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Authority v. United States Army Corps of EngineersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- In Re the Review of the 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Electric & Gas UtilitiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral HomesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.