Legal Opinion · Dissent

Woodhall v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 13, 2007No. A05-2424, A05-2525Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, PAUL H„ Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. For the reasons set forth in my special concurrence in Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Adelmann, 590 N.W.2d 327 (Minn.1999) (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring specially), I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court has lost subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, I would reverse and let this case proceed.

We need to be very cautious about how we treat the rights of persons when we apply the Takings Clauses which are more accurately described as the Eminent Domain Clauses…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. RustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
  2. Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of Richfield v. AdelmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  3. State v. JudeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API