Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, 317 N.W.2d 352.

26 citing documents.

CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Airports Comm’n, (agreeing that “an opinion on diminution, to be persuasive to the trier of fact, should ordinarily be substantiated by some kind of market studies or other documentation” and that “[m]ere assertions are not enough”); Sallden, 113 N.W.
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
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Interstate Companies v. City of Bloomington 790 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Airports Comm’n, -59 (Minn.1982) (Alevizos II).
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
Airports Comm’n, -60 (Minn.1982).
Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed District 639 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed District 639 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Airports Commn, -60 (Minn.1982) (holding that in mandamus proceeding, jury resolves disputed factual questions on whether a taking occurred, while court rules on whether facts as found by jury constitute taking as a matter of law).
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
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
See, e.g., Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (Alevizos II) (requiring a determination of a measurable diminution in the market value); Hendrickson, 267 Minn, at 446, d at 173 (“If the jury determines that plaintiffs are entitled to recover, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the property before and afte
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Finke v. State 521 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
( Alevizos II ), the supreme court determined that the landowners were entitled to a jury trial and reversed and remanded the action for trial on all issues.
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. City of Princeton 401 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. City of Princeton 401 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(Alevizos II), we observed: The court at several junctures of Alevi-zos II indicated that the landowner has the burden of proving measurable diminution of market value, that such burden is difficult, and that mere assertions are not enough.
Ario v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 367 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1985
Keenan v. International Falls-Koochiching County Airport Zoning Board 357 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Keenan v. International Falls-Koochiching County Airport Zoning Board 357 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This ruling was further clarified in Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (Alevizos II), where the court stated: Alevizos I presents a two-step test for a constitutional taking in these unique airport noise cases: namely, does the noise constitute a “substantial” invasion and does such invasion result in a “measurable” diminution of market value.