Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 18, 1992No. C4-91-1941, C7-91-1870Published

1DissentTomljanovich, Justice

I join Justice Simonett’s dissent as to the first certified question, whether, in a partial taking condemnation action, evidence of construction related interferences are admissible, not as a separate item of damages, but as a factor to be considered by the finder of fact in determining the diminution in market value of the remaining property.

However, I would also answer no to the second certified question, whether, in a partial taking condemnation action, the evidence of loss of visibility to the public traveling on a redesigned highway is admissible, not as a separate item of damages, but…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Danforth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District v. FitzpatrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  3. State v. Gannons Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  4. McCarthy v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
  5. Haeussler v. BraunSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API