Laserfiche WebLink
,glevi~os p. MewO, ooiita~l <br />/,irpoms Corem 4. ~98 Minn <br />47l.~10 N.W~dOSI l~974). <br /> <br />Humphrey. 571 N.W ~d ~C <br />Mmn SI~. ch Ii; <br /> <br />Minm, xol~ :it~rl'o Council o~4 <br />N W 2d 485 (Nhnn. 26041. <br /> <br />~2 U.SC f lU83 <br /> <br />;qottschode ~, CiO, of Rochester. <br />319F.3diC:38(3i9F3d <br /> <br />Cto, qf ..Womsrq:. r De! ,'dome <br />Dunes crt Monterey. 527 [_i.S <br />687.. tlO.q Ct. ,~'>~!lc~9'~ <br /> <br />£oa' An~giey ~'7~n' C-OUn¢l/ v. <br />&~xp~,?er;'jbr Fmc~t t ~66 U.£ <br />789. I04 S. C'.. 2! i8 ( !984} <br /> <br />o/'Ven' )'oi'x. 431:1 U.$ q)4 qg <br /> Ct. 2540 ~ I qT,:Ii. <br /> <br />When tine government has taken, property without f'ormallv using its eminent <br />domain powers, the property owner has a cause of action for inverse <br />condemnation under the eminent domain taws. <br /> <br />inverse condemnation is an action against a governmental defendant to <br />recover the value of property that has been taken in fact by ti,.e government <br />defendant, even though no fbrmal exercise oi: the statutory power of eminent <br />domain has been attempted by the taking agency. <br /> <br />Money damages may also be available under a claim that the taking violates a <br />person's constitutional riglnts. <br /> <br />Be~bre bringing a takings clause claim in federal court, a property owner <br />must first attempt to obtain just compensation through inverse condemnation <br />procedures available in state courts. <br /> <br />The U.S. Supreme Court tbund that the city of.Monterey. Calif., by imposing <br />more and more rigorous demands each ofti~e five times it rejected <br />applications to develop a parcel of' land, committed a regulatory taking of the <br />land without paying just compensation or providing an adequate post- <br />dept'ivarion remedy for the loss. The Court aisc determined it was appropriate <br />For ajury to find tlmt tlne city's denial of the final development plan was not <br />reasonably related to legitimate public interests. The issue of wiqen a jury is <br />required in a takings case was raised in this case. Because of the exweme <br />circumstances, the Supreme Court held that ajury ,,vas required. But it is clear <br />that a jury is required only in cases where tine, f~cts and procedural posture are <br />extreme. If the actions of the tit5, in dealing with an applicant for a land use <br />permit are so extreme that due process requires a jm'y to be appointed, the <br />city should not expect the jury to be sympathetic to arguments that it acted <br />reasonably. <br /> <br />B. Zoning ordinances <br /> <br />Cities enact zoning ordinances based on their police powers dmt allow them <br />to reasonably prornote the public heaitln, safety, morais, and welfare, which <br />may aisc include protecting tine appearance of tlneir conqmunity. <br /> <br />Generally. no taking occurs where the city's land use regulation is reasonably <br />necessary to accomplish a legitimate government purpose. <br /> <br />Th~s cl~apLcr ;asr re,.qsed 91295!20114 <br /> <br />[-IANDBOOK !:OIt. ,X4INNESOTA CITIES <br /> <br />94 <br /> <br /> <br />