07/07/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

A sampling of appellate cases where Mr. Kelly was lead counsel: Mistelske v. Andover Economic Development Authority, 2004 WL 2793219 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). Appeal on behalf of business owner whose land was condemned of EDA's denial of relocation benefits. Court of Appeals reversed denial and remanded to EDA for payment. Maplewood Development, Inc. v. City of Maplewood, 1997 WL 785704 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). Successful defense of City requirement for developer to dedicate a portion of the property for storm water drainage. Summary judgment granted in favor of City at trial level and later upheld by the Court of Appeals. O'Mara v. State of Minnesota/University of Minnesota, 501 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1993). Landmark workers compensation case. Obtained reversal of Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals decision denying benefits to claimant. Established definition of "suitable employment." County of Ramsey v. Town of White Bear, 469 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). Successful defense of appeal by Ramsey County of special assessments imposed by the Township against County property. The Court of Appeals held that the County's property received a special benefit from construction of the water main by the Township. Dege v. City of Maplewood, 416 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). Successful declaratory judgment action to enforce special use permit. Dege claimed that the City was estopped from enforcing terms of special use permit by revoking building permit for construction of a trailer garage on parking lot. The Court of Appeals held that the City was not estopped from enforcing the terms of the special use permit. Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). Successfully defended City against claim of improper denial of construction variances. Obtained favorable judgments at trial court and at Court of Appeals. Nordgren v. City of Maplewood, 326 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1982). Landmark case involving property owner's appeal of cash connection charges. The Court found the charges valid even though they replaced special assessments which had been voided. The Court also held that the City did not violate the order voiding the assessments by imposing connection charges.