Court of Appeals 08.11.09

Today’s releases include a published opinion holding that immunities, either under the Municipal Tort Claims Act or official immunity, do not apply in mandamus actions.  The short version of the facts in Pigs R Us, LLC v. Compton Township: company applies for swine facility building permit, Town grants permit, citizens complain, Town pulls permit, Town hastily passes a zoning revision, Court grants writ of mandamus and awards damages.  The case on damages (Pigs R Us sought over $1.7 million) is where things got interesting.  The Court engages in a detailed discussion of statutory immunity and mandamus, reaching a clear conclusion that mandamus is outside the MTCA.  Less attention is paid to a vicarious official immunity claim, as it’s logically inconsistent to concede that a non-discretionary duty exists supporting mandamus (as the Town does here), but then claim official immunity, which only exists for discretionary acts.  The case came to the Court on a denial of summary judgment, so the opinion only reaches the questions of immunity. 

I don’t think the Court is trying to mock Compton Township, but it’s odd that the unpublished opinions can be read to say “hey, here’s how it’s done.”    The City of Rochester fares better making an immunity argument to the Court, obtaining a reversal for entry of judgment on a failure-to-warn claim.  The opinion follows the line of cases (Minder v. Anoka County, Krieger v. St. Paul) requiring actual knowledge of a defect to defeat statutory immunity.  Pawn America applied for an available pawnbroker license in St. Louis Park, citizens panicked, the City adopted a moratorium, studied and revised its zoning several months later, Pawn America gets no license.  City wins the lawsuit – the key difference likely being the adoption of a moratorium for study (reasonable) instead of an immediate rewrite of zoning ordinances (arbitrary).

And I didn’t get to it when it came out (real writing assignments always crowd out the blog assignments), but congratulations to my law school classmate Roy Christensen, who won a 60-day rule appeal for his landowner client last week.


2 Responses to “Court of Appeals 08.11.09”

  1. Supreme Court 10.29.09 « Minnesota Municipal Law Blog Says:

    […] district court case and prevailed on appeal.  At the time, I thought the Court of Appeals might be mocking the Township by releasing the St. Louis Park opinion on the same day.  Paired together, there was […]

  2. Interim Ordinance Escape Hatch Affirmed « Minnesota Municipal Law Blog Says:

    […] over a year ago, the Court of Appeals released its opinion in this case on the same day it released Pigs R Us LLC v Compton Township.  I thought the cases paralleled each other: landowner applies for permit, intially gets permit, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: