Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 462.361 (2026)
Judicial Review
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§
Subdivision 1.Review of action.
Any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and appeals acting pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 may have such ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order, reviewed by an appropriate remedy in the district court, subject to the provisions of this section.
§
Subd. 2.Exhaustion of remedies.
In actions brought under this section, a municipality may raise as a defense the fact that the complaining party has not attempted to remedy the grievance by use of procedures available for that purpose under ordinance or charter, or under sections 462.351 to 462.364. If the court finds that such remedies have not been exhausted, it shall require the complaining party to pursue those remedies unless it finds that the use of such remedies would serve no useful purpose under the circumstances of the case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: White Bear Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1986).
White Bear Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1986). “1981), the City of Hugo argues certiorari is inappropriate here because Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1(1984), provides an adequate remedy in district court: Any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and…”
Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church, 672 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Minneapolis challenges Citizens’ standing to challenge its zoning decisions arguing Citizens has not complied with general standing doctrine and that they are not “aggrieved persons” under Minn.”
Neitzel v. Cnty. of Redwood, 521 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1, provides: Any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and appeals acting pursuant to sections 162.”
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 617 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2000). “Compare Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (1998) (providing for district court review of zoning orders of a "governing body" or board of adjustments); Minn.”
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). “2d at 416 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (2004) (providing for judicial review of municipal planning or zoning decisions in the district court); Minn.”
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Twp., 882 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2016). “9 (2014) (providing that any person aggrieved by a decision of a county board of adjustment has the right to appeal to the district court); Minn. Stat. § 462.361 , subd. 1 (2014) (providing that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a decision of a governing body or board of adjustments…”
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981). “Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (1980), provides: Any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and appeals acting pursuant to sections 462.”
Centra Homes, LLC v. City of Norwood Young Am., 834 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “The agreement permitted Centra to file an appeal to the district court under Minn.Stat. § 462.361 (2012), to challenge the city’s permit valuations for the two homes.”
City of Hibbing v. Baratto, 620 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “But Shaw is not determinative in this case because Minn. Stat. § 462.361 , subd. 1 (1998), specifically *60 provides for district court review of a city-council’s zoning decision.”
Pierce v. Otter Tail Cnty., 524 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “” Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (1990). Horn held that a writ of certiorari from this court was not the exclusive means of review because section 462.”
Stansell v. City of Northfield, 618 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “Minn.Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (1998). The Northfield residents may therefore maintain their action if they qualify as “person[s] aggrieved” by the city council’s action.”
Lam v. City of St. Paul, 714 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). “” Minn.Stat. § 462.361. The city council tied the license denial to the 2003 rezoning decision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.