Legal Opinion
Omdahl v. Hadler
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 21, 1990No. C5-90-612PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge.
Appellants challenge the judgment entered pursuant to the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for respondents holding that the grasshopper control law does not provide counties with the authority to certify the costs associated with the grasshopper spraying as a lien against the landowner’s property.
FACTS
The drought of 1988 caused the state’s grasshopper population to increase substantially. In the spring of 1989, the State Department of Agriculture determined that the increased population posed a risk to agricultural production and that there was likely to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Phillips v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public SchoolsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNORCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Holte v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Alton v. Wabedo TownshipCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNORCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999