DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Burnquist, 220 Minn. 129.

15 citing documents.

  • Housing & Redevelopment Authority Ex Rel. City of Fridley v. Main Street Fridley Properties, LLC 755 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Eminent-domain proceedings are “special proceedings.” Antl v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , 133
  • Johnson v. City of Shorewood 531 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Antl v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , 133
  • Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. City of Duluth 520 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Eminent domain proceedings are “special proceedings.” Anti v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , 133
  • State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. 503 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In Antl v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , the supreme court stated: “Condemnatory proceedings in the exercise of the right of eminent domain are not civil actions or causes within the meaning of the constitution, but special proceedings, only quasi judicial in their nature.” Id.
  • Judd v. State ex rel. Humphrey 488 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Eminent domain proceedings are “special proceedings.” Antl v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , 133
  • Park & Recreation Board of Minneapolis v. Carl Bolander & Sons Property 436 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    DECISION Eminent domain proceedings are “special proceedings.” Antl v. State, 220 Minn. 129 , 133
  • Town of Lebanon v. Land Holding Co. 143 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1966
    In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77 ; State, by Burnquist, v. Fuchs, 212 Minn. 452 , 4 N. W. (2d) 361 ; Duluth Transfer Ry.
  • In Re Application of Sister Kenny Foundation, Inc. 126 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1964
    5 See, also, In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77 ; Cunningham, Appealable Orders in Minnesota, 37 Minn. L. Rev. 309 , 329.
  • Miller v. Market Men's Mutual Insurance 115 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1962
    In In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129, 135 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77, 81 , we held that, an interlocutory or discretionary order or decree permitting or refusing to permit intervention in a cause is not appealable.
  • Village of Roseville v. Sunset Memorial Park Assn. Inc. 113 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1962
    In re Condemnation of Lands *110 Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77 .
  • State, by Lord v. Frisby 108 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1961
    & T. Co. 31 Minn. 289 , ; Town of Rost v. O’Connor, 145 Minn. 81 , , 9 A. L. R. 1265; In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77 .
  • State ex rel. Peterson v. Anderson 69 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1955
    There we stated ( 224 Minn. 245 , 28 N. W. [2d] 180): “We held in In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129, 135-138 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77, 80-82 , that an order granting a motion to intervene in condemnation proceedings, determining that property has been taken, and appointing commissioners to ascertain damages is not appealable.
  • State v. Anderson 58 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1953
    In a companion decision filed the same day, namely, In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N. W. (2d) 77 , we referred to the Anderson case and said that in similar cases of this kind arising in the future the aggrieved owner of such omitted lands may compel condemnation by mandamus.
  • Chapman v. Dorsey 230 Minn. 279 Minn. 1950
    687 ; In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 19 N.W.
  • State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Bentley 28 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1947
    We held in In re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs, 220 Minn. 129 , 135-138 , , 80-82 , that an order granting a motion to intervene in condemnation proceedings, determining *Page 246 that property has been taken, and appointing commissioners to ascertain damages is not appealable.