Legal Opinion · Dissent

Foote v. City of Crosby

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 19, 1981No. 50574Published

1DissentYetka, Justice

The majority refers to our prior decisions holding that trees may not be removed from city streets when their removal would be unnecessary, when the streets are unusable or have been abandoned, or when the trees do not present a clear obstruction to public travel. From this collection of cases, the majority concludes that the City of Crosby is entitled to remove four elm trees from the Footes’ property without paying any compensation. In reaching this conclusion, the majority ignores an important line of cases that should compel us to affirm the trial court’s order in this case. For this…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sallden v. City of Little FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  2. McEachin v. City of TuscaloosaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  3. Cook v. City of AnsoniaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
  4. Seaman v. Borough of WashingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  5. Johnson Bros. Grocery, Inc. v. State, Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

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