Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin County, 91 N.W.2d 657.

24 citing documents.

In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
“[D]rainage proceedings in this state are purely statutory and their validity depends upon a strict compliance with the provisions of the statute by which they are regulated and controlled.”
In the Matter of Keystone Township, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Because drainage proceedings “are purely statutory and their validity depends upon a strict compliance with the [controlling] statute,” jurisdiction serves as a useful analogy, Bd.
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Drainage proceedings “are purely statutory and their validity depends upon a strict compliance with the provisions of the statute by which they are regulated and controlled.” Hagen v. Martin County, 253 Minn. 367, 370
In re the Appeal from the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux … 818 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Appeal from the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux … 818 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
of Martin, 253 Minn. 367, 370 , (stating that the validity of drainage proceedings depends upon “strict compliance with the provisions of the statute by which they are regulated and controlled”).
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District 723 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Hagen v. Martin County, 253 Minn. 367, 371 , (concluding that the various chapters of the Minnesota Water Law should be construed together); (“Statutes in pari materia are those relating to the same person or thing or having a common purpose.”).
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
In Re the Estate of Jotham 722 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2006
See In re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34, (quoting Hagen v. County of Martin, 253 Minn. 367, 371 , ).
Pestka v. County of Blue Earth 654 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pestka v. County of Blue Earth 654 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pestka and Phillips argue that until the benefits and damages are finally determined, there can be no valid establishment order, relying on Hagen v. County of Martin, 253 Minn. 367
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
See In re Petition for Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin County, 253 Minn. 367, 372 , (noting that statutes regulating the construction of public drains are designed for the protection of landowners).
In Re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34 615 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2000
In Re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34 615 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2000
1; see also Hagen v. County of Martin, 253 Minn. 367, 370 , (“no order shall be made establishing a drainage system unless the benefits to be derived from such a system are greater than the total estimated cost including damages”).
Maxwell v. County of Freeborn 386 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Maxwell v. County of Freeborn 386 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Drainage proceedings in Minnesota “are purely statutory and their validity depends upon a strict compliance with the provisions of the statute by which they are regulated or controlled.” In re County Ditch No. 11, Martin County, 253 Minn. 367, 370
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, Martin County, 253 Minn. 367
Black v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 167 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1969
Distinguished Black v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 167 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 1969
In re Improvement of County Ditch No. 11, 253 Minn. 367 , 91 N. W. (2d) 657 , upon which appellants rely for engrafting an alternative to *89 this statutory procedure, is distinguishable.
Springborg v. WILSON & CO. INC. 95 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1959