Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 18, 1992No. C4-91-1941, C7-91-1870PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WAHL, Justice.

The questions certified in this appeal ask us to determine whether evidence of construction-related interferences and loss of visibility may be taken into account to the extent they affect the market value of the *557property in determining just compensation in an eminent domain proceeding. We answer both questions in the affirmative.

In October 1986, the State of Minnesota began eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 117.042 (1986) to acquire property necessary for the construction and conversion of Highway 12 to a federal interstate highway, 1-394. The condemnation…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Hendrickson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  5. Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. AndaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  2. County of Dakota v. CameronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  3. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of EaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  5. County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997

20 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