Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom, 493 N.W.2d 554.

36 citing documents.

David Lindstrom, Trustee of the Gladys B Lindstrom Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State by Humphrey v. Strom , , 558 (Minn. 1992).
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Loren K. Yarmon v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert W. Weckman v. County of Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Minnesota Constitution provides broader protection for landowners than the federal constitution, and “the clear intent of Minnesota law is to fully compensate its citizens for losses related to property rights incurred because of state actions.”
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
County of Dakota v. Cameron 839 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2013
See, (stating, in the eminent-domain context, that “[t]he value of any commercial property is dependent in part on its location”).
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 830 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2013
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 830 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2013
In fact, the plain language of the statute suggests the opposite: that, as in other eminent domain trials, “evidence [should] be admitted concerning any factor which would affect the price a purchaser willing but not required to buy the property would pay an owner willing but not required to sell it.”
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The takings clause of the Minnesota Constitution “is broader than the language of the federal constitution.”
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To determine the appropriate amount of “just compensation” for a partial taking, the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied the following standard: “[T]he measure of damages is the difference between fair market value of the entire piece of property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder of the property after the taking.” City of St.
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
V; (describing the Minnesota takings provision as “broader than the language of the federal constitution”).
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
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2007
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2003
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2003
These constitutional and statutory provisions have been construed to mean that “the clear intent of Minnesota law is to fully compensate its citizens for losses related to property rights incurred because of state actions.”
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
(“[T]he mere fact that injuries will be temporary * * * is no ground for disallowing recovery, since a purchaser might pay less if he knew such injuries were to be inflicted.”) (citing 4A Julius L. Sackman, Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain § 14.08 (rev.3d ed.1989)).
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
Corp., , 334-35 & n. 1 (Minn.1997); -61 (Minn.1992).
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
394, 402 (1937); -59 (Minn.1992).
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