Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. City of Plymouth, 263 N.W.2d 603.

50 citing documents.

Cup Foods, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
has recognized that the government may, under its broad police powers, “impose any reasonable restrictions and may make any reasonable regulations, in respect to the use which the owner may make of his property, which tend to promote the general well-being or to secure to others that use and enjoyment of their own property to which they are lawfully entitled .” Johnson v. City of Plymouth , d 603, 606-07 (Minn. 1978) (quotation omitted).
William B. Wood, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- 07 (Minn. 1978) (reasoning that whether an abutting property owner was deprived of reasonable access is dependent on whether the government unduly restricted vehicular access to the property).
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).
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Minn. 2020
This is especially true with respect to conditions affecting public health and safety.”), overruled on other grounds
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
–06 (Minn. 1978); Underwood v. Town Bd.
Cannon Falls Mall Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[P]roperty owners have a right to reasonably convenient and suitable access to a public street or highway which abuts their property.” (quotation omitted).
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a taking “can arise out of any interference by the state with the ownership, possession, enjoyment, or value of private property.”
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
The existence of reasonable access is thus a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances peculiar to each case.”
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
Minn. Const, art. I, § 13
In Re Application for PERA Retirement Benefits of McGuire 756 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Application for PERA Retirement Benefits of McGuire 756 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312, 324 , -52 (1946)
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
The Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312, 324 , -52 (1946)
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
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
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2003
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2003
Co., (“To be constitutionally compensable, the taking or damage need not occur in a strictly physical sense and can arise out of any interference by the state with the ownership, possession, enjoyment, or value of private property.”).
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 638 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2002
Dale Properties, LLC v. State 638 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2002
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
Gannons, 275 Minn, at 19, d at 326 .
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
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Request of Lafayette Development Corp. 567 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(stating that under Minnesota law, property owners have a right of “reasonably convenient and suitable access” to a public street that abuts their property).
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
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Sand, 227 Minn. 202 , Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312 , rev’d on other grounds, Petition of Halberg Constr.
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
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance 479 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1991
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance 479 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1991
I. Article I, section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution provides: “Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation, first paid or secured.” This provision “imposes a condition on the exercise of the state’s inherent supremacy over private property rights.”
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Smith v. City of Owatonna 450 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1990
Smith v. City of Owatonna 450 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1990
ch. 453A (1988); (“the implementation of any improvement project on a public thoroughfare is undertaken in the interest of the public safety and welfare pursuant to inherent governmental police powers.”) As the court of appeals observed, “to give an individual [a right to a particular manner of service] would indeed i
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
Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 283 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1979
Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 283 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1979
Because, “taking or damage * * * can arise out of any interference by the state with the ownership, possession, enjoyment, or value of private property,” we must next determine whether the otherwise valid encroachment regulation constitutes a taking of Krahl’s property for which just compensation must be paid

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by