Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagangreen2 sentences2018The portion of the Wensmann Realty opinion that was cited by the district court is concerned only with the first factor of the Penn Central test, "[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant." Wensmann Realty , 734 N.W.2d at 635 (citing Penn Central , 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 ). 2018The portion of the Wensmann Realty opinion that was cited by the district court is concerned only with the first factor of the Penn Central test, "[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant." Wensmann Realty , 734 N.W.2d at 635 (citing Penn Central , 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 ). | 3 | 4 |
Johnson v. City of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences2010Likewise, in Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 109 (Minn.2003), the supreme court stated that even if a takings claim fails under the United States Constitution based on a Penn Central analysis, the property owner may be entitled to compensation under the Minnesota Constitution, based on its more restrictive language. 2010Likewise, in Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 109 (Minn.2003), the supreme court stated that even if a takings claim fails under the United States Constitution based on a Penn Central analysis, the property owner may be entitled to compensation under the Minnesota Constitution, based on its more restrictive language. | 2 | 3 |
Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodburygreen2 sentences2018See Palazzolo , 533 U.S. at 630 , 632 , 121 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (remanding to district court for application of Penn Central test to partial regulatory takings claim); Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury , 492 N.W.2d 258 , 263 (Minn. App. 1992) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993). 2018See Palazzolo , 533 U.S. at 630 , 632 , 121 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (remanding to district court for application of Penn Central test to partial regulatory takings claim); Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury , 492 N.W.2d 258 , 263 (Minn. App. 1992) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993). | 1 | 2 |
Westling v. County of Mille Lacsgreen2 sentences2012Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); see also Wensmann Realty, 734 N.W.2d at 633 (considering the Penn Central factors); 3 Johnson, 667 N.W.2d at 114-15 (same); Westling, 581 N.W.2d at 823 (same). “[T]he Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 540 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005). 2012Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); see also Wensmann Realty, 734 N.W.2d at 633 (considering the Penn Central factors); 3 Johnson, 667 N.W.2d at 114-15 (same); Westling, 581 N.W.2d at 823 (same). “[T]he Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 540 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005). | 1 | 2 |
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Boardgreen2 sentences2025And even if Fletcher had argued for application of the DeCook test instead of the Penn Central test, we have explained that the DeCook test applies “[w]hen an airport ordinance regulates land use within runway safety zones.” DeCook, 796 N.W.2d at 307 . 2025And even if Fletcher had argued for application of the DeCook test instead of the Penn Central test, we have explained that the DeCook test applies “[w]hen an airport ordinance regulates land use within runway safety zones.” DeCook, 796 N.W.2d at 307 . | 1 | 1 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2018See Palazzolo , 533 U.S. at 630 , 632 , 121 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (remanding to district court for application of Penn Central test to partial regulatory takings claim); Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury , 492 N.W.2d 258 , 263 (Minn. App. 1992) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993). 2018See Palazzolo , 533 U.S. at 630 , 632 , 121 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (remanding to district court for application of Penn Central test to partial regulatory takings claim); Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury , 492 N.W.2d 258 , 263 (Minn. App. 1992) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Districtgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). 2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). 2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Zeman v. City of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). 2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Pratt v. State, Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). 2007See, e.g., Wes tling, 581 N.W.2d at 823-24 ; Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 552 ; Pratt v. State Dep’t of Natural Res., 309 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn. 1981); State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn.1979); Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist., 283 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. City of Minneapolisgreen1 sentence2003See Johnson, 649 N.W.2d at 884 . | 1 | 1 |
Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Appellants claim, therefore, that this case is similar to Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 2187 , 81 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984), where the United States Supreme Court found that no tak *880 ing occurred under the Penn Central standard because the government did not significantly interfere with the property owner’s use of its property. 1 In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court reviewed New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law, which was enacted to meet concerns that historic buildings were being destroyed without sufficient consideration of their historic, cul 2002Appellants claim, therefore, that this case is similar to Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 2187 , 81 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984), where the United States Supreme Court found that no tak *880 ing occurred under the Penn Central standard because the government did not significantly interfere with the property owner’s use of its property. 1 In Penn Central, the United States Supreme Court reviewed New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law, which was enacted to meet concerns that historic buildings were being destroyed without sufficient consideration of their historic, cul | 1 | 1 |
Zeman v. City of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences1996Zeman v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 532, 536 (Minn.App.1995). 1996Zeman v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 532, 536 (Minn.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2018The portion of the Wensmann Realty opinion that was cited by the district court is concerned only with the first factor of the Penn Central test, "[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant." Wensmann Realty , 734 N.W.2d at 635 (citing Penn Central , 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 ). 2018The portion of the Wensmann Realty opinion that was cited by the district court is concerned only with the first factor of the Penn Central test, "[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant." Wensmann Realty , 734 N.W.2d at 635 (citing Penn Central , 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. at 2659 ). | 5 | 1996–2018 |
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); see also Wensmann Realty, 734 N.W.2d at 633 (considering the Penn Central factors); 3 Johnson, 667 N.W.2d at 114-15 (same); Westling, 581 N.W.2d at 823 (same). “[T]he Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 540 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005). 2012Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); see also Wensmann Realty, 734 N.W.2d at 633 (considering the Penn Central factors); 3 Johnson, 667 N.W.2d at 114-15 (same); Westling, 581 N.W.2d at 823 (same). “[T]he Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 540 , 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005). | 2 | 2007–2012 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
2 sentences2002Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) (describing a per se exception to the Penn Central analysis that applies when the governmental activity “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land”). 2002Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) (describing a per se exception to the Penn Central analysis that applies when the governmental activity “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land”). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.