Legal Opinion
County of Dakota v. Cameron
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 27, 2013No. A11-1273PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STRAS, Justice.
The legal questions presented by this case relate to the operation of Minnesota’s minimum-compensation statute, MinmStat. § 117.187 (2012), which provides a mechanism for compensating property owners who “must relocate” following the condemnation of their real property. Appellant George W. Cameron, IV, who had his commercial property taken by respondent County of Dakota (“the County”), argues that the district court erred when it failed to award him sufficient damages under the minimum-compensation statute to purchase a “comparable property in the community.” Minn.Stat.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Specialized Tours, Inc. v. HagenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- State v. ThonesavanhSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- State v. HenselSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- 650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates 1-20, and Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, and Third Party v. Berwald Roofing Company, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.