09-24-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert E. Weisbrod September 18, lyua Page 2 5. Plaintiff's Proposed Order. 6. Court Order granting plaintiff's motion, extenuing time to file petition for reneariny to include September 20, 1984. As outlined in Bruce Malkerson's memo, the decision was a significant victory for the city. While the supreme court held that the city had no authority to regulate dredging per se, it did uphold the city's right to regulate duckiny and shoreline activities. This, in connection with the ability to petition the Department oil Natural Resources, will provide the city with the ability to preserve the environment while allowing permissible uredgin(j activity. The decision also represents a significant decision regarding the liability of municipalities for attorneys' fees. In its decision, the Mi.u►esota Supreme Court spoke for the first ti,r►e on this issue and used a very narrow test which should work to the benefit of municipalities in the future. Prior to receiving plaintiff's motion regarding a petition for reneariny, we had concludea that implementation of the court's opinion would involve no further court appearances. Plaintiff's ;notion and the court's girder have obviously causeu us to reassess that conclusion. Plaintiff's contention that the supreme court failed to consider significant factors in its review of the attorneys' fee issue is unlikely to prevail. t..ur current intention is to file a brief in opposition to plaintiff's petition for rehearing so that our silence is not iritErrpreted as acquiescence. Should the court grant the petition tur a reneariny, we will file a more extensive, although still •)r iet, respo►►sa. Tne court will also deterinine at that time w!,ether ordl argument is required. It you have any quest.iur►s or comments, please do not nesitate to call me. tie will continue to keep you apprised of events as they trtinspirv. dew t 'y gouts, k7 Th✓✓oMss J . Ra o TJR/ly Enclosure cc: Mayor ano City Council 1269a