Legal Opinion · Concurrence

HOUSING & REDEVEL. AUTHOR. OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Mpls. Metropolitan Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 5, 1960No. 38,028Published

1ConcurrenceLoevinger, Justice

I concur in the disposition of this case by the court but dissent from the court’s opinion with respect to the second point.

Relator contends that the Authority has not complied with the statutory mandate to find or provide “a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families to be displaced from the project area.” Minn. St. 462.531. From an examination of the record I am not convinced that the Authority has complied with this mandate. The record may be incomplete on this point, but we take it as it comes to us. It does not establish that the Authority in this respect has done “all that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. SpaethSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  2. Schultz v. KroschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  3. In Re Settlement of CegonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  4. Sackette v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API