inverse condemnation claim in Minnesota

2003See Wilson, 352 N.W.2d at 394 (stating that “[a] landowner whose property has been flooded by the alleged actions of a municipality has several possible remedies or causes of action, such as negligence, nuisance, trespass, and inverse condemnation”); see also City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, 607 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.2000) (finding that appellant had not made an inverse condemnation claim even when court liberally construed pleadings); City of Maple Lake v. Am.

1996The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that discretionary immunity protected the city from the negligence claims, but the court remanded the case, granting the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to allege an inverse condemnation claim, stating “[t]he defense of discretionary immunity does not, of course, apply to inverse condemnation.” Id. at 395 .

2025Airports Comm’n, 216 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn. 1974); see also Stenger v. State, 20 argument that these fees were outside the scope of a section 117.031(a) award as a matter of law, but here, we address the reasonableness of these fees.

2016We have held that review of certain decisions of local government entities are subject to review only by certiorari under Minn. Stat. § 606.01 , which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the 6 court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari.2 See, e.g., Cty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn. 2012); see also Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals” for a writ of certiorari).

2016We have held that review of certain decisions of local government entities are subject to review only by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari. 2 See, e.g., Cty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn.2012); see also Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals” for a writ of certiorari).

2016In Courteaus, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Highways, the supreme court rejected an inverse-condemnation claim brought by the owners of property that did not abut a relocated highway. 268 N.W.2d 65, 67-68 (Minn. 1978).

2003Comm’n, 42 Cal.App.4th 1807 , 50 Cal. Rptr.2d 488, 489 (1996), a property owner brought an inverse condemnation claim alleging that the installation of a light-rail line in front of her business unreasonably blocked access to her property and diminished the property’s value.

2003Comm’n, 42 Cal.App.4th 1807 , 50 Cal. Rptr.2d 488, 489 (1996), a property owner brought an inverse condemnation claim alleging that the installation of a light-rail line in front of her business unreasonably blocked access to her property and diminished the property’s value.

2003See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1963) (stating “[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature”) (citations omitted); see Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.App.1987) (asserting “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987); cf. State ex rel.

2003See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1963) (stating "[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature") (citations omitted); see Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.App.1987) (asserting "the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court"), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987); cf. State ex rel.

2003See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1963) (stating “[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature”) (citations omitted); see Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.App.1987) (asserting “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987); cf. State ex rel.

2003See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497 , 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1963) (stating “[i]f there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature”) (citations omitted); see Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.App.1987) (asserting “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987); cf. State ex rel.

2003Id. at 395 ; see Thomsen, 284 Minn. at 474 , 170 N.W.2d at 580 (concluding that actions for inverse condemnation must be brought through an action in mandamus). *495 Judicial efficiency and economy also persuade us that a landowner should be able to seek inverse condemnation by petitioning for mandamus, and alternatively, file a complaint, particularly where, as here, it is uncertain whether the landowner will be successful in establishing that a taking occurred.

2003Id. at 395 ; see Thomsen, 284 Minn. at 474 , 170 N.W.2d at 580 (concluding that actions for inverse condemnation must be brought through an action in mandamus). *495 Judicial efficiency and economy also persuade us that a landowner should be able to seek inverse condemnation by petitioning for mandamus, and alternatively, file a complaint, particularly where, as here, it is uncertain whether the landowner will be successful in establishing that a taking occurred.

2003See Wilson, 352 N.W.2d at 394 (stating that “[a] landowner whose property has been flooded by the alleged actions of a municipality has several possible remedies or causes of action, such as negligence, nuisance, trespass, and inverse condemnation”); see also City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, 607 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn.App.2000) (finding that appellant had not made an inverse condemnation claim even when court liberally construed pleadings); City of Maple Lake v. Am.