Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 18, 1992No. C4-91-1941, C7-91-1870Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSimonett, Justice

I would answer the first question “no” and the second question “yes,” and, therefore, respectfully dissent in part.

In a partial taking the condemnation award breaks down into (1) damages for the part taken and (2) severance damages to the part remaining. Severance damages can occur because: (a) the part remaining is a smaller, less usable tract; and (b) the part remaining is adversely affected because of the way in which the land taken from the owner and others is put to use by the taker. This second type of severance damages is also called “consequential” damages.

Consequential damages…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Watts v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Hendrickson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. Thomsen v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969

6 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