Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />means <br /> <br /> <br />In <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />D. clearing and providing useful <br />plicant's experts introduced new uncertainties and were unqualified to <br />on many of the issues. <br /> <br />The uncertainties about the crematorium were not cleared up <br /> <br />expert <br /> <br />ions. Contrary to Applicant's assertions,68 the City of Roseville \vas under no ob- <br /> <br />ligation to allow its decision to be controlled by the limited and non-conclusive <br /> <br />opinions expressed by the engineers Jackson and Hannu. Indeed, the case cited <br /> <br />Applicant, Sup"erArnerica Grp. v. Ci(v of Little Canada, stands for the opposite <br /> <br />idea. \Vhat SuperAmerica does say is that <br /> <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />may not ect expert <br /> <br />testimony without adequate supporting reasons, those reasons need not be based <br /> <br />on expert testimony.,,69 And the wisdom of following the guidance of these "ex- <br /> <br /> <br />IS even <br /> <br /> <br />nor <br /> <br />are <br /> <br />health experts, as they readily admit and as the district court pointed out in <br /> <br />memorandum accompanying its decision.io <br /> <br />6i See supra. note 34 and accompanying text. <br />Appellant's Brief, 15. <br />09 539 N.\V.2d 264,267 (Minn. App. 1995); See a/so BBY [nveSlOrs v. City <br />,\fap/e,,\'ood, 467 N.\V.2d 63 L 635 (Minn. App. 1991). <br />A-282-285. <br /> <br />, ..., <br />i J <br />