Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 106. DRAINAGE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 106.031 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1952–1992 · leading case: Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 153 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 153 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1967). · cites it 4× “to make the percentage of landowners required to sign a drainage improvement petition correspond with the percentages specified in § 106.031. Although this issue is not free from doubt, we are persuaded that a consideration of all the relevant aids to properly ascertain and give…”
Cnty. of Dodge v. Martin, 136 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 7× “It is provided by § 106.031 that before any public drainage system or other improvement authorized by §§ 106.”
Swoboda v. Cnty. of Renville, 62 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1954). · cites it 4× “17, provides: “ ‘Ditch,’ ‘drainage system,’ ‘public drainage system,’ ‘improvement,’ or ‘drainage proceeding’ means either an open or tiled system and all laterals or parts thereof; also the improvement of any natural waterway included in or utilized in the construction of any…”
State Ex Rel. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 359 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 106.031, subd. 1 (1982). The county board then appoints an engineer to make a preliminary survey to determine whether the proposed ditch is necessary and practical.”
Fischer v. Macht, 114 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 3× “1 *213 Appellants indicate that they would not seriously attack the petition as insufficient under § 106.”
Seidlitz v. Cnty. of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1952). “Each is a distinct proceeding commenced by peti *361 tion and carried on with due regard for constitutional due process: (1) The original proceeding (§ 106.031, et seq.) for establishment of a drainage system, either by way of a county ditch, or by a judicial ditch where more…”
Maxwell v. Cnty. of Freeborn, 386 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “031 deals specifically with establishment of a drainage system, not modification thereof.”
In Re Improvement of Co. Ditch No. 21, Redwood Co., 262 Minn. 210 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 3× “[1] *213 Appellants indicate that they would not seriously attack the petition as insufficient under § 106.”
Cnty. of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “Under chapter 106 there, are five types of ditch proceedings: (1) The original proceeding, § 106.031, et seq. for establishment of a drainage system, either by way of a county ditch, or by a judicial ditch where more than one county is involved; (2) a proceeding, § 106.”
Jagodzinske v. Cnty. of Martin, 58 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. 1953). “501, as the court held, or whether the improvement described constitutes the construction of a new ditch, for which proceedings under § 106.031 would be required. County ditch No.”
In Re Establishment of Jud. Ditch No. 17, 263 Minn. 547 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 2× “1953, § 106.031, as amended by L. 1955, c. 800, § 1.”
Johnson v. Hedtke, 117 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 2× “1953, § 106.031, as amended by L. 1955, c. 800, § l.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.