|
Country Joe, inc., et al., Respondents, vs. City of Eagan, petitioner, Appellant. C8-95-228... Page 7 of 7
<br />
<br />Coronado Dev. Co. v. City of McPherson, t89 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51 (1962); Eastern Diversified
<br />Properties, Inc. v. ,&fontgomery County, 319 Md. 45, 570 A.2d 850 (1990); PFielepski v. Har~brd
<br />Cotmty, 98 Md. App. 721,635 A.2d 43, vacated on other grounds, 335 Md. 225,642 A.2d 1357 (1994);
<br />Middlesex & Boston St. Ry. v. Board of Aldermen, 371 Mass. 849, 359 N.E.2d 1279 (1977); 2Vew,fersey
<br />Builders Ass'n v. Bernards Township, 108 N.J. 223,528 A.2d 555 (1987); HilIis Homes, Inc. v.
<br />Snohomish County, 97 Wash. 2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982).
<br />
<br />[5] See Associated Home Builders of Greater E. Bay, inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633,484
<br />P.2d 606 (1971); Contractors & BuildersAss'n v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976); Holmdel
<br />Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel, 121 N.J. 550, 583 A.2d 277 (1990); Tidewater Ass'n of
<br />Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 241 Va. 114, 400 S.E.2d 523 (1991).
<br />
<br />[6] The court of appeals did not expressly state that the basis of its opinion was that the charge was an
<br />unlawful tax. However, the court did state, "A decision of this court upholding a road unit connection
<br />charge would, we believ% directly contravene the intent of the legislature in providing specific
<br />limitations on thepower to tar..'.' Country Joe, 548 N.W.2d at 286 (emphasis added).
<br />
<br />[7] Because we conclude that the road unit connection charge is unauthorized under Minnesota law, we
<br />need not reach the contractor's argument that the charge is an unconstitutional taking without just
<br />compensation. The amicus curiae raises the additional argument that, based on the court of appeals
<br />decision in Ctystal Green v. City of Crystal, the contractors waived their right to challenge the road unit
<br />connection charge by failing to challenge the charge at an earlier date. See 421 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. App.
<br />1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 25, 1988). However, because this issue was neither reached by
<br />the district court nor raised by a party, before this court, we likewise decline to address it on review. See
<br />Thayer v. American Fin. Advisers, Znc., 322 N.W.2d 599, 604 (Minn. 1982) (declining to consider an
<br />issue not "considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it"); State v. Applebaztms Mkts.,
<br />[nc., 259 Minn. 209, 216, 106 N.W.2d 896, 901 (1960) (holding that amicus curiae may not raise the
<br />issue of the constitutionality of a statute when the issue was not raised by any party to the action).
<br />
<br />72
<br /> ~l~'//F"\T3nonm~nt~°/~?Onnct°/a?{)?,ettinos\aqeisler. RA~vI,qF,~I ,aha 1%20,q ettin cm\Tamnm'nrv
<br />
<br />6/? SI9 CIO4-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|