Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rust, 98 N.W.2d 271.

28 citing documents.

The City of Minneapolis, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State by Lord v. Rust , 256 Minn. 246, 253, (“Attempts on the part of a condemnor by technical means to defeat the landowner’s right to his day in court have never been viewed with favor.”).
Woodhall v. State 738 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2007
HOUSING AND REDEVEL. AUTH. v. Adelmann 590 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1999
HOUSING AND REDEVEL. AUTH. v. Adelmann 590 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1999
We first made reference to language used in the case of State v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , to emphasize that attempts on the part of the condemnor to defeat a landowner's right to his day in court are not looked on with favor, especially when the constitutional right to just compensation for the taking of land is involved.
CONDEMNATION BY HOUS. & REDEV. v. Suh 553 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
CONDEMNATION BY HOUS. & REDEV. v. Suh 553 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In support of this statement, the court cited State by Lord v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 257
County of Dakota v. Lyndale Terminal 529 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1995
County of Dakota v. Lyndale Terminal 529 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1995
See, e.g., State by Lord v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 257
Judd v. State Ex Rel. Humprey 488 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Judd v. State Ex Rel. Humprey 488 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The trial court misplaced reliance on the holding of State v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 253
Helgeson v. Gisselbeck 375 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Helgeson v. Gisselbeck 375 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In concluding that the commissioners did not have the authority to consider the condemnation clause in this case, the trial court cited State v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , for the proposition that the commissioners are limited to determining the award of damages and cannot determine the respective interests of the various claimants.
Slayton Gun Club v. Town of Shetek, Murray County 176 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1970
Slayton Gun Club v. Town of Shetek, Murray County 176 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1970
State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 257 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271, 279 .
State v. Tolberg 140 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1966
State v. Tolberg 140 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1966
6 State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 257 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271, 279 .
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
3 For more recent cases espousing this rule, see State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 , and cases cited therein; Johnson v. Mugg, 261 Minn. 451 , 113 N. W. (2d) 1 .
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Hvidsten 129 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1964
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Hvidsten 129 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1964
1 Schlecht v. Schlecht, 168 Minn. 168 , ; Alton v. Hecht, 184 Minn. 271 , ; Johnson v. Mugg, 261 Minn. 451 , 113 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 ; 2 Jones, Evidence (5 ed.) § 483; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
Vierling v. Independent School District No. 720 129 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1964
Vierling v. Independent School District No. 720 129 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1964
2, and 117.14; State, by Lord, v. North Star Concrete Co. 265 Minn. 483 , 122 N. W. (2d) 118 ; State, by Lord, v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47 , 115 N. W. (2d) 749 ; State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 ; State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 ; City of Crookston v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 321 , 69 N. W. (2d) 909 ; Simmons v. St.
Johnson v. Mugg 113 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1962
Johnson v. Mugg 113 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1962
1 Davis v. Moses, 172 Minn. 171 , ; State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 ; 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2446; see, also, dictum in Horn v. Hansen, 56 Minn. 43 , , 22 L. R. A. 617.
State, by Lord v. Frisby 108 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1961
State, by Lord v. Frisby 108 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1961
1 This phase of the issue was not raised in State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 .
State v. Jude 102 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1960
State v. Jude 102 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1960
The general principle governing a case of this kind is well stated in the recent case of State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246, 253 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271, 276 , where this court said: “* * * The decisions in this state have never unduly restricted the owner’s constitutional right to just compensation where there has been a taking of private property for public use under the powers of eminent domain.