Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hendrickson v. State, 127 N.W.2d 165.

87 citing documents.

Cup Foods, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Special injury is “one different in kind from that suffered by the general public as the result of the city ’s action.” Id.
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
e right of access to a highway is “the diminution in the market value of the property” as measured by “the difference between the market value of the property before and after suitable access has been denied.” Beer v. Minn. Power & Light Co., (quotation omitted)
Hader Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of: Petition to Vacate Town Road, Kenneth Kuk, et al., Appellants, Joseph VanKeulen Revocable Living … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Whether reasonably convenient and suitable access remains after a change in access is “a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances peculiar to each case.” (explaining that reasonable access is a question for the fact finder).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
What is reasonable access is typically a fact question.3
Cannon Falls Mall Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cannon Falls Oil Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cannon Falls Oil Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Dale Props., d at 766 (stating a property owner’s right of access includes “reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main thoroughfare in at least one direction”); see also Hendrickson v. State, 7 267 Minn. 436, 446, (restating the same principle).
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“It is well settled under Minnesota law that property owners have a right of ‘reasonably convenient and suitable access’ to a public street or highway which abuts their property.” (citing Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446, ).
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Persons who are not abutting landowners have no right to damages “merely because access to a conveniently located highway may be denied, causing them to use a more circuitous route.” Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 442, -71 (1964).
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Corp., d at 335; Gannons, 275 Minn. at 23, d at 329; Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 440-41, - 70 (1964).
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446-47
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago 742 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(citing Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 442 , -71 (1964) (noting to the contrary that land owners with property that does not abut a street to which they seek access have no compensable right to access)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(“Like other property rights, the right of reasonable access can be infringed or ‘taken’ by the state, giving the property owner a constitutional right to compensation.”); Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 486, 445-46 , -73 (1964) (“If the jury decides that the location of the proposed interchange substantially impairs plaintiffs’ right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main thoroughfare, plaintiffs are entitled to damages.”).
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 684 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2004
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metropolitan Council 667 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metropolitan Council 667 N.W.2d 501 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993); Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 638 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2002
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 638 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2002
The resolution of this case is governed by our decisions in Hendrickson v. *766 State, 267 Minn. 436 , State ex rel.
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 619 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 619 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Corp., d at 334 (citing Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 442 , ).
Kick's Liquor Store, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 587 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kick's Liquor Store, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 587 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
1 We conclude that there is merit in appellant’s contention that Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436 , subsumes the earlier decisions on cul-de-sacs, creating a general proposition of law that losses of access to and from existing roads are com-pensable insofar as the change “substantially impairs [the landowner’s] right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to the main thoroughfare.” Id
Grossman Investments v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 571 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Grossman Investments v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey 571 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp. 566 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1997
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp. 566 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1997
While property owners have no vested interest in the continued flow of traffic past the property, Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 442 , property owners do have a right of “reasonably convenient and suitable access” to a public street or highway that abuts their property.
County of Anoka v. Maego, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
County of Anoka v. Maego, Inc. 541 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 440
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 442 , -71 (1964) (citing Vacation of Part of Town of Hibbing, 163 Minn. 439, 451-52 , 204 N.W.
County of Anoka v. Esmailzadeh 498 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of Anoka v. Esmailzadeh 498 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(quoting Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446 , ).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
In addition, evidence of “diminution in value of only the real estate is relevant.” Hen-drickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 447 , (emphasis added).
Smith v. City of Owatonna 450 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1990
State v. Weber-Connelly, Naegele, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Weber-Connelly, Naegele, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446-47
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, e.g., State v. Gannons, Inc., 275 Minn. 14, 16, (abutting property on street with 200-foot-wide right of way and traveled surface 85 feet wide); Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 437 , (property abutted right of way but was located 85 feet from traveled portion of highway).
Beer v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 400 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1987
Beer v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 400 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1987
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436, 446