Cited by

But this court is “not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint.”

The partial dissent disagrees, reasoning generally that when the Legislature delegates its eminent domain power, “it does not carry with it whatever additional regulatory powers might be useful in administering the taking.” Although we have sometimes stated that statutes delegating or governing the power of eminent domain should be strictly construed, see, we typically invoke the strict-construction rule to protect the person whose land or other rights are being taken.

But this court is “not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint.”

When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant, “the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

But we are “not bound by legal conclusions stated in a 4 complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

see also Minn. Stat. §§ 508.11, .12 (2024).

Minnesota law defines a “taking” as “every interference, under the power of eminent domain, with the possession, enjoyment, or value of private property.” Minn. Stat. § 117.025 (2022); (“A de facto taking is defined as a taking in which an entity clothed with 13 eminent-domain power substantially interferes with an owner’s use, possession, or enjoyment of property.” (quotation omitted)).

n.3 (Minn. 2008); (“An easement does not give title to the land upon which it is imposed, nor does it exclude use by the landowner or the public.”).

DECISION When reviewing a case dismissed under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, appellate courts must determine “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the question before this court is whether the 4 complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

The district court cannot resolve mixed questions of law and fact on a motion to dismiss “without a developed factual foundation.” - 36 (Minn. 2008).

Our review is de novo.” (citation omitted).

d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted).

15 This court reviews de novo both a district court’s order dismissing a case under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e), d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008) , and its application of statutory immunity, Schroeder v. St.

From a practical perspective, a determination regarding the circumstances that would result from full implementation can be based on known quantities (i.e., the number of residential parcels subject to the policy) (“We are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”).

Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes

Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes

Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes , (M inn.

P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we review the legal sufficiency of the claim de novo to determine “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes

We next consider whether Smart Growth’s complaint “sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” 12 We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo.

The case went to trial, and the jury found the ; Lorix v. Crompton Corp. , d 619, 631 n. 3 (Minn.2007).

P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be grante d, the question before [appellate courts] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” See Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes