Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad, 39 N.W. 629.

50 citing documents.

Minn. 2020
We have said that “because a constitutional pr ovision for just compensation was inserted for protection of the citizen, it ought to have a liberal interpretation, s o a s to e f f e c t i ts general purpose.” Anda, d at 876 (quoting Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & N. R.R., ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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
Co., 39 Minn. 286, 290 , 39 N.W.
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
Without identifying to which constitution we referred, we have observed that because a constitutional provision for just compensation was “inserted for the protection of the citizen, it ought to have a liberal interpretation, so as to effect its general purpose.” Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & N. R.R., 39 Minn. 286, 290 , 39 N.W.
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 429 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1988
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 429 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1988
1 See Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railway, 39 Minn. 286, 290 , 39 N.W.
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 415 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Castor v. City of Minneapolis 415 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
814 (1894) (construction of bridge approach which radically increased street grade held a proper street use); Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railway, 39 Minn. 286 , 39 N.W.
Haeussler v. Braun 314 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
Haeussler v. Braun 314 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1981
Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railway, 39 Minn. 286 , 39 N.W.
City of Crookston v. Erickson 69 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1955
City of Crookston v. Erickson 69 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1955
Adams v. *326 Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493.
State v. Miller Home Development, Inc. 65 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1954
State v. Miller Home Development, Inc. 65 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1954
12 Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493; Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , 19 N. W. (2d) 394 .
Burger v. City of St. Paul 64 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1954
Burger v. City of St. Paul 64 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1954
Minn. Const, art. 1, § 13, provides: “Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured.” Adams v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493; Strauss v. Ginzberg, 218 Minn. 57 , 15 N. W. (2d) 130 , 155 A. L. R. 1000; Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , 19 N. W. (2d) 394 ; In re Petition for Establishment of County Ditch No. 78, 233 Minn. 274 , 47 N. W. (2d) 106 ; United States v. Wheeler Township (8 Cir.)
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. County of Blue Earth 47 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1951
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. County of Blue Earth 47 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1951
Adams v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286, 290 , , 1 L. R. A. 493; In re Appeal of Sowers, 175 Minn. 168, 170 , ; Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , 19 N. W. (2d) 394 ; United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333, 339 , 30 S. Ct. 527 , 54 L. ed. 787, 789; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Comm.
The Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna 24 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1946
Burnquist v. Cook 19 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1945
Burnquist v. Cook 19 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1945
& Supp. § 3037; Adams v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493, 12 A. S. R. 644; United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333 , 30 S. Ct. 527 , 54 L. ed. 787, 28 L.R.A.
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 174 Minn. 305 Minn. 1928
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 219 N.W. 172 Minn. 1928
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 174 Minn. 305 Minn. 1928
(2 ed.) § 3067; Adams v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493, 12 A. S. R. 644; Gustafson v. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334 , , 22 L. R. A. 565; Demueles v. St.
Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co. 219 N.W. 172 Minn. 1928
(2 ed.) § 3067; Adams v. C. B. N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , 39 N.W.
Drake v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 162 N.W. 453 Minn. 1917
Drake v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 162 N.W. 453 Minn. 1917
268 ; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L.R.A.
Matthias v. Minneapolis, St. Pahl & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 146 N.W. 353 Minn. 1914
Matthias v. Minneapolis, St. Pahl & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 146 N.W. 353 Minn. 1914
Co. 32 Minn. 201 , ; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L.R.A.
Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis 108 N.W. 480 Minn. 1906
Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis 108 N.W. 480 Minn. 1906
Co., 39 Minn. 286 , , 1 L. R. A. 493, 12 Am.
Guilford v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 102 N.W. 365 Minn. 1905
Guilford v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 102 N.W. 365 Minn. 1905
Co., 33 Minn. 365 , ; Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 423 , ; Thelan v. Palmer, 36 Minn. 225 , ; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ; Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42 Minn. 532 , ; Lakkie v. Chicago, St.
Kray v. Muggli 86 N.W. 882 Minn. 1901
Kray v. Muggli 86 N.W. 882 Minn. 1901
Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286, 292 , .
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Co., 38 Minn. 212 , ; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ; Lamm v. Chicago, St.
Gundlach v. Hamm 64 N.W. 50 Minn. 1895
Gundlach v. Hamm 64 N.W. 50 Minn. 1895
The case of Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 288 , , is also relied upon by appellant, but it is decisive against his claim.
Willis v. Winona City 60 N.W. 814 Minn. 1894
Willis v. Winona City 60 N.W. 814 Minn. 1894
Neither does Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ( ,) aid the plaintiff, for that case proceeds upon the proposition that the construction and maintenance of an ordinary commercial railway upon a street is the imposition of an additional servitude.
Gustafson v. Hamm 57 N.W. 1054 Minn. 1894
Gustafson v. Hamm 57 N.W. 1054 Minn. 1894
& T. Co., 28 Minn. 373 , ( ;) Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ( .)
Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 47 N.W. 455 Minn. 1890
Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 47 N.W. 455 Minn. 1890
Mitchell, J. The main facts in this case are the same as in Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.
Demueles v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co. 46 N.W. 912 Minn. 1890
Demueles v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co. 46 N.W. 912 Minn. 1890
Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.
Carroll v. Wisconsin Central Co. 41 N.W. 661 Minn. 1889
Carroll v. Wisconsin Central Co. 41 N.W. 661 Minn. 1889
In Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.