Laserfiche WebLink
r , <br /> [Complete reversal of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 , and 8 above.] <br /> b. the trial court should invalidate and <br /> establish a permissible ceiling on any new <br /> assessment. <br /> [Complete reversal of paragraph 9 above.] <br /> 6. In Ewert vs. City of Winthrop, __ Minn. <br /> 1 1 <br /> N.W.2d , Apri3, 1979, the Supreme Court rued: <br /> a. "where the landowner maintains that the <br /> assessment is excessive, the determination <br /> (by the trial court) is to be a de novo <br /> • one." <br /> [Complete reversal of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 above.) <br /> b. Because the City failed to determine <br /> the amount of special assessments prior to <br /> adopting the assessment by a beforeandial <br /> after analysis of each property, the <br /> court should invalidate the entire assessment. <br /> [Entirely new law, <br /> never <br /> er discussed <br /> the edten]the past by the <br /> court, no requirement <br /> c. if there are substantial differences <br /> in expert opinion, the trial courts should <br /> order reassesment. <br /> [New law. ] <br /> d. no right to a jury trial on appeal. <br /> [1inall a oint for the cit .] <br /> e. the trial court should instruct the <br /> city as to a specific allowable figure on <br /> reassessment. <br /> [New law.] <br /> 7. In Kraemer & Sons, Inc. vs. Cit of Burnsville, <br /> Minn. ____,• N.W.2d _• August 24, 979, the <br /> Supreme Court ru ed: <br /> a. The trial court can find the thespc <br /> special <br /> benefit was $0, even though the city's <br /> ert <br /> testified there was a benefit of over $200, 000 <br /> and the landowner's expert testified otht atstthe <br /> benefit was $0. The city then may <br /> ss <br /> even $1. <br /> -4- <br />