Westling v. County of Mille Lacs (1996)

green · 31 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 6

Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199620112026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Westling v. County of Mille Lacs (1998)

Rule Authority · Minn. · 2 citations in this opinion

Westling III, 543 N.W.2d at 93.

green Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda (2010)

Rule Authority · Minn.

Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, 543 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.1996).

green Lake County Assessor v. United States Steel Corp. (2009)

Rule Authority · Ind. T.C.

R. 150-308.205-(E) (2001) (requiring assessors to apply the sales comparison, cost, and income approaches to value contaminated land); Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, 543 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.1996) (accepting valuation of property where evidence of comparable properties established its market value less the value resulting from stigma and the present value of the anticipated cleanup costs); Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. Adams County Bd. of Equalization, 261 Neb. 130 , 621 N.W.2…

green Mola Development Corp. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 (2000)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(See Westling v. County of Mille Lacs (Minn. 1996) 543 N.W.2d 91, 92-93 [affirming assessment based on taxpayer’s expert who not only deducted present value of future costs of cleanup but a “stigma discount” in addition].) After all, there will always be the fear that not all the pollution was cleaned up, and therefore a certain reserve would be prudent.

green Dealers Manufacturing, Co. v. County of Anoka (2000)

Cited · Minn. · signal: see · 8 citations in this opinion

See Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, 543 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.1996) ( Westling II ).

green Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking (2000)

Cited · Minn. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Wallin v. Rappaport, 543 N.W.2d 91, 91 (Minn.1996) (inability to definitively recall facts to support elements of claim results in no direct evidence that would avoid summary judgment) (order op.); see also Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn.App.1995) (“self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact”) (citing Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., …