County of Hennepin v. Decathlon Athletic Club, Inc.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2012, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns (Minn. 2012)
- State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
Relator Decathlon Athletic Club, Inc. (“Decathlon”) filed a petition under Minn.Stat. § 278.01 (1996), 1 disputing the January 2, 1993, estimated market value for taxes payable in 1994 on two parcels of property located in Hennepin County. Respondent Henne-pin County (“County”) moved for summary judgment 2 seeking dismissal of the petition, contending that the assessed market value of the two parcels had been agreed to as part of a multi-year settlement agreement between Decathlon and the County. The tax court granted the County summary judgment and dismissed the tax petition.
Decathlon now appeals the tax court’s grant of summary judgment, raising five arguments: (1) the tax court erroneously granted summary judgment because no consideration existed for the settlement agreement; (2) the tax court erroneously granted summary judgment because the City Assessor did not have authority to enter into the settlement agreement on behalf of the County; (3) in the settlement agreement, Decathlon did not waive its right to appeal the 1993 market value set forth in the agreement; (4) the County breached the settlement agreement by posting a 1993 market value that was $20,000 higher than the parties had agreed upon, thereby precluding performance by Decathlon; and (5) the tax court abused its discretion by quashing Decathlon’s subpoena and granting the County’s protective order.
Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the issues raised or arguments made by Decathlon, and because we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the tax court properly applied the applicable law, we affirm.
Affirmed.
. Minnesota Statutes section 278.01 states, in relevant part:
Any person having personal property, or any estate, right, title, or interest in or lien upon any parcel of land, who claims that such property has been partially, unfairly, or unequally assessed * * * or that the parcel has been assessed at a valuation greater than its real or actual value * * * may have the validity of the claim, defense, or objection determined by the district court of the county in which the tax is levied or by the tax court * * *.
. The County initially filed a motion to dismiss, which the tax court denied. In this proceeding, the County attempts to appeal the denial of that motion; however, an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable because it simply retains the action for trial, does not involve the merits of the cause of action, and is not a final order. See Hall v. Community Credit Co., 287 Minn. 241, 243, 178 N.W.2d 245, 246 (1970); Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, 262 Minn. 455, 460, 115 N.W.2d 923, 927 (1962); Independent Sch. Dist. No. 84 v. Rittmiller, 235 Minn. 556, 557, 51 N.W.2d 664, 664 (1952).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.