Laserfiche WebLink
Mar-31-99 01:11mm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-098 P.08/08 F-823 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> c0981989 Court of Appeals <br /> The district court referred only to Minn. Stat. § 473.641,subd. 4,prohibiting the upgrading of minor <br /> use airports to intermediate use airports. But that statute is not violated by MC's consideration of <br /> MAC's recommendation to extend a runway to the maximum length for minor use airports as defined <br /> by the metropolitan development guide, aviation chapter. <br /> Public policy as set forth in the statutes does not support granting the injunction. <br /> 5.Administrative Burden on the Court <br /> This factor is irrelevant.The district court's finding that there is no burden in administering the <br /> injunction is true,but it is equally true that denying the injunction so planning can proceed imposes <br /> no administrative burden. <br /> DECISION <br /> City did not make the showing of irreparuble harm prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief, and <br /> neither the parties'prior relationship,nor City's likelihood of success on the merits, nor public policy, <br /> supports granting the injunction. <br /> Reversed. <br /> Footnotes <br /> 01 City argues that at the time it signed the stipulation, it did not know that the maximum runway <br /> length for minor use airports had been changed from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet.But City does not <br /> suggest that MC or MAC wrongfully concealed this information or that they had a duty to inform <br /> City of the change. <br /> [21 City submitted an affidavit of a legislator stating that in 1980 he understood that changes in the <br /> definition of minor use airports would be made by the legislature,not by MC. But this understanding <br /> is not consistent with the statutory language specifying that minor use status is "as defined by the <br /> metropolitan development guide, aviation chapter." <br /> http://www.courts.state.mn us/opinions/coa/current/c0981989.html <br /> 3/31/99 <br />