BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello

OPINION

CONNOLLY, Judge.

Appellant argues that the district court erred in its interpretation of Minn.Stat, § 475.52, subd. 1 and abused its discretion by failing to allow appellant to twice amend its complaint. Because the district court did not err in its conclusion that a broadband-communication network qualified as a “utility or other public convenience,” the operating reserve fund was to be used for start-up costs, not current expenses, and the district court did not *908abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions to amend its complaint, we affirm.

FACTS

The facts in this case are…