06-23-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not affct that they are sufficient to over come the presumption that the legislative body has acted reasonably and in a manner consistent with the feneral welfare of the community. BOWS T. FBEDLUND csta ••aoiN.w.aaan We have held many times that residen-" tial aoninf is a valid exercise of the police power, is in the public interest, and ad- the public welfare. JState ex rel.vances 146, 204 N. W. 569. 54 A.L.R. 1012 (1925), affirmed per curiam. 273 U.S. 671, 47 S.Cl 474, 71 LEd. S32 (1927); Sute ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, supra; State v. Mod- em Box Makers, Inc., supra; Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village ofUuldoor Advertising^;©, v. Village Minnetonka, Jfnier^nffTvidg him of the right to have the Und reaooed. An offer of proof was made, but objection to it was susUined by the trial court and no finding was made on that question. If, in fact, the land cannot be used for resi dential purposes, it may well be an uncon stitutional taking without due process of law to deny defendant the right to reaone. We reverse the trial court without preju dice to the right of defendant to petition again for rezoning on the ground Uut the land is not suitable for use for residential purposes. In the event defendant petitions for rezoning, all proceedings should be stayed until a final determination is made on the petition. •V •W -------------------------ICnCe TRSThecsTanisIm^^ of this residential area was unreasonable or that it was not in the public interest. Similarly, a careful review of the record reveals no subsUntial evidence to support the finding that the en forcement of the ordinance is unconstitu tional as to defendant. Defendant is enti- tledjo_ttwtiiu^ hU__preyn^^ncon7oBSi^ Reversed. use m the same manner and to the same extent mat jt_was operated at the time the Mningordinai^ JJSSt cvcrnn^nTorcCTncn^PPi^prB^ will «fcance_Uie posiibinty that defendant's S^»n?orminguse"%rnr^ventoair^^^ ^ Tbis is a reasonable means to *he end of esUblishing a uniform residen tial area. Altns A BOWC, at al., Raspandaats, V. John rREOLUNO, at al., Appellaata. Na. 43441. Biipreme Court of IHnncaota. Dec. 15, 1P72. The issues involved in this case are novel and unusual, and it is obvious from the record that the trial court has spent con siderable time ai^ effort in attempt ing to •• _______, mat tiie attempted construction of s build-^ ing on defendant ’s land was an expansion and extension of the nonconforming use and that the enforcement of the ordinance against defendant is not unconstitutional. Therefore, we reverse. [10,11] It appears from the record that defendant asserU that the land cannot be used for residential purposes and that, therefore, it is unconstitutional to deprive Action for injuries sustained by pas senger when automobile in which she was riding was struck from rear by a car driv en by defendant The District Court, Goodhue County, John’B. Friedrich, J., en tered judgment adverse to defendant, and denied defendant's alternative motion for a new trial or a remittitur, and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Mac- J.jiughlin, J., held that defendant overtak ing motorist, who, when there were ap proximately seven car lengths between her car and overtaken car, noticed an insect on her arm, who claimed that she was afraid of insects, that she screamed and brushed insect off her arm, and that she looked up to find that she was only about one and a r Lf ■