J & W Asphalt, Inc. v. Belle Plaine Township, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
REYES, Judge.
Appellant argues that . MinmStat. § 161.16, subd. 4(b), contains an implicit acceptance requirement, and because it did not accept the conveyance of Hanlon Drive from respondent, the conveyance was, not effective, Appellant further argues that Hanlon Drive is a cartway, and the private landowners whose property abuts the road are responsible for its maintenance. Finally, appellant argues that it neither opened Hanlon. Drive nor authorized the expenditure of public funds for it, so it cannot be responsible for maintaining it. Because we conclude that MinmStat. § 161.16,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Star Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Christianson v. HenkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Village of Newport v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Hebert v. City of Fifty LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.