Legal Opinion
Shinneman v. Arago Township
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 4, 1980No. 49423PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OTIS, Justice.
In October 1976 plaintiff Albert Shinneman petitioned the Arago Township Board to vacate a road crossing his property that had never been officially dedicated. The town board took no action on the petition. By a complaint served November 4, 1976, plaintiff sued to enjoin defendant townships, Arago and Lake Emma, from using and maintaining the road, and, in the alternative, he requested that the court vacate the road or award him damages. The defendant townships answered alleging that the road had been established as a public road via statutory user pursuant to Minn. Stat. §…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Anderson v. BirkelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Krambeck v. City of GretnaNebraska Supreme Court · 1977
- Barfnecht v. Town Board of Hollywood TownshipSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Miller v. Town of CorinnaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ravenna Township v. GrunsethSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Foster v. BergstromCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Huver Ex Rel. Huver v. OpatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Town of Belle Prairie v. KliberCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Township of Villard v. HotingCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.