Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thomsen v. State, 170 N.W.2d 575.

46 citing documents.

Cannon Falls Mall Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A taking may occur when the state alters an abutting property owner’s access to a roadway, even if no property was actually physically appropriated, when it damages the property “in the constitutional sense.”
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 475, -81 (1969).
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
4 damages.3 Dale Props., d at 765; Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 475, -81 (1969).
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 475, -81 (1969) (stating that mandamus court must use jury only if disputed facts exist).
Nolan and Nolan v. City of Eagan 673 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Nolan and Nolan v. City of Eagan 673 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468, 474
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
Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 472 , -79 (1969).
City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl 607 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl 607 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The mandamus court must determine first whether “there has been a taking or damage in the constitutional sense that it may compel the state to initiate condemnation proceedings.” Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468, 475
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
Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 471
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
Thomsen v. State by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 472
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468, 474
Fitger Brewing Co. v. State 416 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fitger Brewing Co. v. State 416 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468, 471
Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
See Electric Short Line Terminal Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 242 Minn. 1 , Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 317 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1982
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 317 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1982
This quoted language, however, must be understood in the context of “the Thomsen mandate for a jury trial.” In Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468 , the issue was whether the construction of a four-lane highway within 10 feet of plaintiff’s house would result in such annoyance and hazard as to damage plaintiff’s property in a constitutional sense.
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Air. Com'n of Mpls. & St. P. 216 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1974
See, Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468, 474 , wherein this court stated: “While ordinarily an adjoining property owner could not recover from the state solely because the value of his property is decreased by noise and light from traffic on a newly constructed *485 highway, whether plaintiff’s property has been so unfairly, di
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
We held in Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , and State, by Mattson, v. Prow’s Motel, Inc. 285 Minn. 1 , that the issue of whether damages to private property constitute a taking in the constitutional sense is a matter of law to be decided solely by the court.
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.
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co. 194 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1971
The trial court supported this position and suggested that plaintiff’s proper remedy would be in condemnation, citing Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468
State Ex Rel. Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc. 191 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1971
State Ex Rel. Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc. 191 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1971
9 See, Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , where plaintiff landowner brought a mandamus action in district court to compel the state to condemn his property.
BENSON HOTEL CORPORATION v. City of Minneapolis 187 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1971
Victor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Head 186 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1971
BENSON HOTEL CORPORATION v. City of Minneapolis 187 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1971
Benson relies on Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , 170 N. W. (2d) 575 ; and Gibson v. Commr.
Victor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Head 186 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1971
It may be noted that the problem presented by this case is to be distinguished from those dealt with in the recent cases of State, by Mattson, v. Prow’s Motel, Inc. 285 Minn. 1 , 171 N. W. (2d) 83 , and Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , 170 N. W. (2d) 575 .
Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways 178 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1970
Gibson v. Commissioner of Highways 178 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1970
Thomsen v. State, by Head, 284 Minn. 468 , 170 N. W. (2d) 575 ; Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn. 436 , 127 N. W. (2d) 165 ; State, by Lord, v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47 , 115 N. W. (2d) 749 .
State v. McAndrews 175 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1970
State v. McAndrews 175 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1970
Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468 , 170 N. W. (2d) 575 ; State, by Mattson, v. Prow’s Motel, Inc. 285 Minn. 1 , 171 N. W. (2d) 83 .
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
As in Thomsen v. State, 284 Minn. 468 , 170 N. W. (2d) 575 , the mandamus court found that the respondent “may have sustained damages as a result of the foregoing facts, for which [it has] not received compensation” and ordered the state to commence condemnation proceedings pursuant to Minn. St.