Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, by Peterson v. Anderson, 19 N.W.2d 70.

50 citing documents.

In Re the Condemnation by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency 439 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1989
In Re the Condemnation by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency 439 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1989
See, State v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139, 146
Ario v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 367 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1985
Welsh v. City of Orono 355 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1984
Welsh v. City of Orono 355 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1984
Peterson v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 317 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1982
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 317 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1982
Cf. State v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139
STATE EX REL. IND. SCH., ETC. v. Dept. of Ed. 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 276 v. Department of Education 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
STATE EX REL. IND. SCH., ETC. v. Dept. of Ed. 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
Minnetonka next argues that it should not be denied its "day in court," citing State, by Peterson v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 276 v. Department of Education 256 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1977
Minnetonka next argues that it should not be denied its “day in court,” citing State, by Peterson v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD 200 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1972
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD 200 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1972
The state has the right in mandamus proceedings to compel condemnation, as we indicated in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139, 152 , to show that the private property was not damaged or “that the state proposes to remedy or has remedied the construction which causes the damage.” From *513 the outset and until the trial court directed that it had no other remedy, petitioner contended that it had a remedy by resort t
Klicker v. State 197 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1972
Klicker v. State 197 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1972
We agree that cases such as State, by Mattson, v. Prow’s Motel, Inc. 285 Minn. 1 , Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , and State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , suggest that the writ of *155 mandamus is proper to compel eminent domain proceedings to compensate landowners for property interests taken or damaged by state action.
Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways 178 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1970
Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways 178 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1970
See, also, Thomsen v. State, by Head, supra; State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 .
State v. Prow's Motel, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1969
State v. Prow's Motel, Inc. 171 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1969
Thomsen v. State, supra; State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 .
Thomsen v. State 170 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1969
Thomsen v. State 170 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1969
The difficult task of deciding whether or not there has been a taking in the constitutional sense and what, if anything, has been taken should not be left to lay commissioners, whose sole function is to assess the amount of monetary damages to which a property owner is entitled.* ** 6 As we pointed out in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 , such issues, raised by an omitted landowner in a mandamus proceeding, must be decided upon their merits by the mandamus court
Binder v. Village of Golden Valley 110 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1961
Binder v. Village of Golden Valley 110 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1961
2 State, by Lord, v. Pahl, 254 Minn. 349 , 95 N. W. (2d) 85 ; State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 ; Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , 19 N. W. (2d) 394 ; see, also, Connor v. Township of Chanhassen, 249 Minn. 205 , 81 N. W. (2d) 789 (as to continuance of nonconforming use).
State v. Anderson 87 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1958
State v. Anderson 87 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1958
See, State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 ; State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 239 Minn. 144, 146, 147 , 58 N. W. (2d) 257, 259 .
Nationwide Corp. v. Northwestern National Life Insurance 87 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1958
Nationwide Corp. v. Northwestern National Life Insurance 87 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1958
15 Dexner v. Houghton, 153 Minn. 284 , ; State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 ; 11 Dunnell, Dig.
Wolfram v. State Ex Rel. Burnquist 74 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1956
Wolfram v. State Ex Rel. Burnquist 74 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1956
State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 .
State v. Bentley 71 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1955
State v. Bentley 71 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1955
Pursuant to the decision of this court in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 , the state was granted the right to answer in each case; following consolidation of the cases and trial, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment were entered by the trial court, denying relief to the petitioners upon the ground that no additional, or greater, amount of water fl
State ex rel. Peterson v. Anderson 69 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1955
State ex rel. Peterson v. Anderson 69 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1955
As stated in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139, 146 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 , 73: “* * * we cannot deprive the state of its right to be heard on its contention that there was no taking or damaging of the lands of such intervening property owners.
Gershone v. City of Minneapolis 60 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1953
In Re Widening East Franklin Avenue 240 Minn. 32 Minn. 1953
Gershone v. City of Minneapolis 60 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1953
State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 .
In Re Widening East Franklin Avenue 240 Minn. 32 Minn. 1953
State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N.W.
State v. Anderson 58 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1953
Collins v. Village of Richfield 55 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1952
Collins v. Village of Richfield 55 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1952
* * Having a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, this proceeding cannot be maintained, for it is a well established rule that mandamus will not lie where there is an adequate remedy at law.” Petitioners cite as controlling State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 , in which we held that mandamus was a proper remedy where the state had omitted certain properties affected by a construction from the condemnation proceedings.
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
State Ex Rel. Schmitt v. Hoffmann 46 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1951
State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139, 152 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70, 76 , where the court said: “In this state, a writ of mandamus is a civil action, which gives the state officers an opportunity to answer and set up either that the land was not damaged or that the state proposes to remedy or has remedied the construction which causes the damage, and therefore
State v. Bentley 45 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1950
State v. Bentley 45 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1950
State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139, 151 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70, 76 .
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Bentley 28 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1947
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Bentley 28 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1947
2 See, State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , , as to necessity for resorting to an action in mandamus in lieu of proceeding by a motion to intervene.
In Re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs 19 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1945
In re Burnquist 220 Minn. 129 Minn. 1945
In re Burnquist 220 Minn. 129 Minn. 1945
That question is considered and determined in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , 19 N. W. (2d) 70 .
In Re Condemnation of Lands Owned by Luhrs 19 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1945
That question is considered and determined in State, by Peterson, v. Anderson, 220 Minn. 139 , .