Legal Opinion

Dynes v. Town of Kilkenny

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 21, 1922No. 22,621PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.

In 1918 plaintiff owned and still owns an 80-acre farm in the town of Kilkenny, Le Sueur county. It was well tilled and was free from quack grass. A public highway runs east and west on the north line of plaintiff’s land. On the farm adjoining plaintiff on the east and also in the highway abutting thereon there was an abundance of quack grass. In June 1918 the town supervisors of the town of Kilkenny commenced improvement of this road. The improvement involved a fill where the road passes through plaintiff’s land, and some of the earth for the fill was brought from along the road to the east.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sallden v. City of Little FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  2. Dickerman v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  3. Stuhl v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  4. Austin v. Village of Tonka BaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  5. Matthias v. Minneapolis, St. Pahl & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McShane v. City of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. Nelson v. McKenzie-hague Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  3. Randall v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Johnson v. County of SteeleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  5. Johnson v. County of SteeleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953

3 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