5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which the law clearly and positively requires such officer, board or tribunal to perform.' These decisions are not always easy to reconcile, but in the present case it comes down to a question of whether plaintiffs have a right to the variance which they seek and to a building permit after such variance is granted. To compel plaintiffs to review the action of the city council by certiorari and then, if the right is found to exist, to enforce it by mandamus simply requires two actions where relief ought to be available in one. Under these circumstances we conclude that the rights of plaintiffs can be determined and enforced in this action, no matter what name we give to the proceeding. Id. at 395-96, 173 N.W.2d at 414-15 (emphasis added). As determined by the district court (4/2/10 Order at 22-24, 32 ¶ 2), the Supreme Court has now dictated that routine challenges to municipal zoning decisions are to be brought as a declaratory judgment action. Mendota Golf v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 179 (Minn. 2006). But the Supreme Court did not, in so doing, even arguably expand the relief available under declaratory judgment actions to allow a -- declaratory judgment ruling against a municipality on a zoning issue to compel the municipality's zoning approval. City cites no case law to the contrary. Accordingly, the district court simply had no authority to issue the purported "effect[ive]" permanent mandatory injunction. B. City successfully persuaded the district court to dismiss ERL's mandamus claim which sought lust such a permanent mandatory injunction Expressly aware that its declaratory judgment claim, "standing alone," could not compel City's zoning approvals, ERL also brought a mandamus claim. 12/8/09 ERL S.J. Opp. Br. at 9 ("[s]tanding alone, ERL's declaratory judgment action would not provide ERL with an alternate 'adequate remedy' to its requested mandamus relief'). But City 5