Legal Opinion
Beer v. Minnesota Power & Light Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 13, 1987No. C5-86-1125PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COYNE, Justice.
Respondent Richard Beer commenced these proceedings in inverse condemnation on December 26, 1985, alleging that his property was damaged by the vacation and closing of a portion of State Highway No. 6 as a result of the expansion of Minnesota Power & Light Company’s (MPL) Clay Boswell generating plant near Cohasset, Min nesota. MPL moved for summary judgment on the ground that the six-year statute of limitations bars this action commenced more than seven years after the vacated portion of the highway was closed and rerouted. Respondent Beer contended, however, that his claim is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hendrickson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Burnquist v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- State Ex Rel. Ashworth v. State Road CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1962
- Prendergast v. Northern Virginia Regional Park AuthoritySupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
- Forsythe v. City of South St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hebert v. City of Fifty LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Scott v. City of Sioux CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1988
- Klumpp v. Borough of AvalonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
- Lankford v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 2004
- Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.