Legal Opinion
Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 4, 2002No. C7-01-1757PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge. *
Relator seeks certiorari review of a decision by the city to demolish his property, contending that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because (1) the city previously indicated the property could be developed; (2) the record of the city’s proceeding is incomplete; and (3) the demolition order was based on a procedure that is inconsistent with the relevant ordinances. Because the city failed to take into account evidence that established relator’s intent to rehabilitate the property, we find its decision to be arbitrary and capricious. We therefore reverse and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications PartnershipSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Stanek v. A.P.I., Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Minnegasco v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Staeheli v. City of St. PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- Peterson v. Washington County Housing & Redevelopment AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- Appeal of KrenikCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- Appeal of John Krenik to a Vehicle-abatement order at 1270 Cleveland Avenue.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.