Laserfiche WebLink
ANALYSIS <br />On appeal from summary judgment, the appellate court <br />deteOTinea whether there are any genuine issues of aatariai <br />fact, and whether the trial court erred in its application or <br />the law. Hubred v. Control Data Corp^, 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 <br />(Mixm. 1989). <br />1, The district court properly had jurisdiction to review <br />the City council's decision. Minn. Stat. S 462.361, sutod. 1 <br />(1988), provides* <br />Anv person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, <br />regulation, division or order of a governing <br />body or board of adjustments and <br />acting pursuant to sections 462.331 ana <br />482.364 ®«y have such ordinance, <br />recuiation, decision or order, reviewed by an <br />SJptopriate remedy in the district court. <br /># « • <br />Th« quMtion pM.«nt«d hats is what is th# ptopar standard of <br />review under this statute. _ <br />The district court applied the following stfendard, which is <br />applicable to review of all toning mattars* <br />whether the toning authority's <br />reasonable • * *. Is there a 'reasonable <br />basis' for the decision? or is the decision <br />'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious . or <br />ia the decision 'reasonably debatable ? <br />ywaneon v. City Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Minn. 1988) <br />(quoting Bonn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.M.2d 409, 417 (Mian. <br />1981)). <br />«• believa the district court misunderstood the scope of the <br />question before it. The issue did not involve a toning matter, <br />- 6 -