My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1980
>
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:06:12 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:04:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
» I. . . . .... •* <br />"It is elementary that a party may not defend an <br />action by asserting facts or rights which do not <br />concern him and in which he has no lawful interest, <br />* • • Just as he cannot predicate a cause of action <br />upon such facts or rights. • » » This is true for <br />the very simple reason that a party may assert and <br />champion only his own rights, riot those of others, <br />(asterisks show omitted citations.)« « «n <br />The Beckers claim that they were denied due process for <br />several reasons. In view of the many planning conunisslon and <br />council meetings held where the Beckers were present and represented <br />• • <br />and the opportunity given to them to submit briefs and a proposed <br />resolution to the council, as well as the extended time devoted <br />by the council td hearings, there is simply no basis on which the <br />Beckers can reasonably assert that they were denied due process. <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that only limited due <br />process rights are granted in quasi-Judlcial hearings before a <br />governing body. In Barton ContractiriK Co.. Inc, v. City of Afton. <br />(decided April 1<», 1978) the court said: <br />"When the governing body considers an application <br />for a special-use permit pursuant to such ordinance, <br />its action no longer bears on an open class of per <br />sons but directly on the particular Interest of the <br />applicant, in which case'it acts in what is usually <br />called a quasl-Judiclal capacity. Sun Oil Co. v. <br />Village of New Hope, supra. The basic rights of <br />procedural due process required in that case are <br />reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable oppor <br />tunity to be heard. These quosi-Judlcai proceedings <br />do not invoke the full panoply of procedures required <br />in regular Judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, <br />many of which would be plainly Inappropriate in these <br />quasi-Judlcial settings." <br />A reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence <br />and arguments is all that due process requires and the Beckers <br />were given that opportunity. <br />Dated: July 24, 1978. <br />Dana Nicholson <br />Judge of District Court <br />- 15 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.