Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Village of Mapleview

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 14, 1972No. 42863PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Milton D. Mason, Justice. *

Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief from defendant because of a fire hydrant on the right-of-way of the street in front of a residence building owned by them in the village of Mapleview. By special verdict, the jury found that the hydrant deprived plaintiffs of reasonable access to their premises, did not reduce the rental value thereof, and reduced the market value thereof by $800. The court denied damages. Defendant appeals from the order permanently restraining the maintenance of the hydrant in its present location.

The issue for determination is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hendrickson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  2. State v. Gannons Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  3. State v. Prow's Motel, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. Curry v. Farmers Livestock MarketCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1961
  5. Matthews v. Stillwater Gas & Electric Light Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Anderson v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  2. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. LongSupreme Court of Alabama · 2000
  4. Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  5. Nordin v. KunoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

2 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