acquired. Save Lantern Bay v. Cass County Planning Comm’n, 683 N.W.2d 862, 868 (Minn.App.2004). Because courts must also consider the public interest in applying estoppel against the government, a governmental entity will be estopped only if it committed affirmative misconduct. Ridgewood Dev. Co., 294 N.W.2d at 292-93; see also In re REM-Canby, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., 494 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Feb. 25, 1993) (requiring affirmative misconduct, rather than simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct for estoppel to apply against the government). The government’s act or omission must be tantamount to an affirmative misrepresentation rather than a mere impression. See Brown v. Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906, 910 (Minn.1985) (<HOLDING>). And the loss to the developer must be
holding that party that did not establish ownership in specific funds was a general creditor that only had a right to payment holding that carrier may be estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper who paid freight to consolidator in reliance on carriers representation that such payment would discharge shippers bill of lading obligation holding that the insurer was not estopped from asserting a policy defense not contained in its reservation of rights letter where the delay was not unreasonable and the insured was not prejudiced holding that department of public welfare was not estopped from collecting funds when no affirmative representation was made but impression was left that doctor need not comply with payment holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed