Minnesota Lawyer
Relator challenged respondent city council’s refusal to extend a previous order to demolish his home, arguing that (1) he did not receive due process, and (2) the council’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and without evidence to support it. Relator claimed the standards he was required to meet constantly changed, making him unable to comply, and that the changing standards led the council to order the removal of his home and deny his request to delay the removal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the council’s notice was constitutionally adequate as it consistently focused on one report and repeatedly told relator he must comply with that report. Affirmed.
A14-2164 Adams v. Saint Paul City Council (St. Paul City Council)
