Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: City of Morris, Respondent, vs. Sax Investments, Inc., Appellant.
Read the opinion in this case at A06-1188
CITATION: 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008)
Legal Issues in APPELLANTS' BRIEF, APPENDIX AND ADDENDUM:WHETHER THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE PREEMPTS THE FOUR PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF MORRIS RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE? The Trial Court, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in a published opinion filed on May 1, 2007, held that the applicable regulations in the Morris City Code at issue in this case were not preempted by the Minnesota State Building Code. Apposite Authorities: Minnesota Statutes § 16B 62; Morris City Code, Section 4.32; City of Minnetonka v. Mark Z. Jones Assoc., 236 N.W2d 163 (Minn. 1975).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF:1. Whether the State Building Code preempts local ordinances designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents living in rental housing that do not affect any integral part of the construction of such buildings. In a published opinion filed May 1, 2007, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, upholding the District Court's decision in this matter, held that the State Building Code preempts local attempts to regulate construction, alteration, remodeling, and restoration of residential housing but does not preempt local authorities from creating and enforcing habitability standards for rental housing. Thus, the State Building Code did not preempt the City of Morris' rental housing ordinance provisions at issue in this matter. Most apposite cases, statutes, and code provisions: City of Minnetonka v. Mark Z. Jones Assoc., 236 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. 1975); Minn. Stat. § l6B.59 et seq.; Morris City Code, § 4.32. 2. Whether properties used for rental housing have non-conforming use rights under the Minnesota State Building Code if existing conditions are "dangerous to life." Having held that the Minnesota State Building Code did not preempt the city regulations at issue, the lower courts did not address the question. Most apposite cases and rules: Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, § 104; Crazy Water Retirement Hotel v. State of Texas, 54 S.W.3d 100 (Tex. Ct. App.-Eastland 2001).
Legal Issues in BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CITY OF ROCHESTER:Whether the state law that prohibits cities from "regulating components or systems of any residential structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code" act to prohibit cities from regulating rental housing using ordinances that impose habitability standards that do not affect an integral part of the design or construction of buildings. The Court of Appeals held that the State Building Code preempts cities from regulating the construction, alteration, remodeling and restoration of residential housing, but does not preempt the regulation of rental housing habitability standards.
Legal Issues in BRIEF FOR THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT:The City of Saint Paul concurs with the City of Morris' Statement of the Legal Issues.
Legal Issues in BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES:State law provides that cities must not "require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any residential structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code." Does state law preempt cities from regulating the business of rental housing by adopting ordinances that impose standards of habitability that do not affect an integral part of the design or construction of buildings? The court of appeals held that the State Building Code preempts cities from regulating the construction, alteration, remodeling, and restoration of residential housing but does not preempt local authorities from creating and enforcing standards of habitability for rental housing.
Also filed: APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF
Return to Home Page
