Barfnecht v. Town Board of Hollywood Township
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Peterson, Justice.
The constitutional question presented by this appeal is whether Minn. St. 160.05, if construed to extend public dedication of a road to a width of 4 rods and not simply to the extent of actual use, results in a taking of private property without due process of law. As a substitute for the common-law creation of highways by prescription or adverse use, 1 the statute provides the following method for acquisition of highways by adverse public use (Minn. St. 160.05, subd. 1):
“When any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Lambert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Walker v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Schaust v. TOWN BD. OF HOLLYWOOD TP., CARVER CTY.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Eager v. State Highway CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hebert v. City of Fifty LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Keidel v. RaskNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Shinneman v. Arago TownshipSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- McKenzie County v. ReichmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Popp v. County of WinonaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.