Legal Opinion
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 11, 1997No. C7-96-1547, C7-96-1550PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PETERSON, Judge.
In these consolidated condemnation, Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, and Minnesota Environmental Policy Act cases, appellants argue the district court erred in finding the taking of their property served a public purpose and was necessary, and in dismissing their environmental claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Dakota County authorized County Project No. 46-06, which called for realigning County Road 46 and expanding it from a two-lane to a four-lane divided road. Appellant Frank Reehtzigel lives on property that abuts the project site.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- HOUSING & REDEVEL. AUTHOR. OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Mpls. Metropolitan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- City of Duluth v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- State, by Lord v. FrisbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Schumacher v. IhrkeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- In Re IrwinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Opus Northwest, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Itasca County v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Lakes & Parks Alliance v. Federal Transit AdministrationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2015
- Opus Northwest, L.L.C. v. Minneapolis Community Development AgencyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Housing & Redevelopment Authority in & for Richfield v. Walser Auto Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.