Legal Opinion
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 14, 2003No. C4-01-1683, C7-01-1676PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice.
Appellants commenced an inverse condemnation action 1 against respondents, the City of Minneapolis and its development agency, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the City”), seeking compensation for the diminishment in rents and value of their properties caused by a “cloud of condemnation” over their properties for many years while respondents pursued redevelopment of the property and later defended litigation brought by the developer. Following trial with an advisory jury, the district court concluded…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Thornburg v. Port of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Potomac Development Corp. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- 120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore CityCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Clay County Realty Co. v. City of GladstoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008
- G & a LAND, LLC v. City of BrightonColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.