Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.101 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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 13
cases, 1949–1984 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Mosloski v. Cnty. of Martin, 80 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1957).
State Ex Rel. Mosloski v. Cnty. of Martin, 80 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1957). “Our public drainage act, § 106.101, subd. 5, provides for findings and order following the preliminary hearing and reads as follows: “If the board or court shall be satisfied that the proposed improvement as outlined in the petition or as modified and recommended by the engineer…”
State Ex Rel. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 359 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 1984). “Minn. Stat. § 106.101 (1982). If it appears that the ditch is necessary and feasible and that it will promote the public health, the board orders a detailed survey and appoints viewers to assess the benefits and damages to affected landowners.”
Janssen v. Cnty. of Chippewa, 98 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1959). “His report was submitted to the board and notice of a preliminary hearing on the survey was given pursuant to § 106.101. The hearing was held April 8, 1957.”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Steele, 60 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 1953). “4(b); § 106.101, subds. 1, 2. [4] See, M.S.A. 106.”
Hawkins v. Cnty. of Kandiyohi, 48 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 1951). “These proceedings, as evidenced by § 106.101, subds. 5 and 6, related to the feasibility and necessity for the proposed improvement, the adequacy of the outlet therefor, and any designated changes deemed advisable therein.”
Taylor v. Cnty. of Sherburne, 67 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1954). ““Upon the filing of the engineer’s report, notice of hearing thereon shall be given as required by section 106.101.””
Swoboda v. Cnty. of Renville, 62 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1954). “…of Loves Park, 335 Ill. App. 528 , 82 N. E. (2d) 387; see, Annotations, 2 A. L. R. 778 and 95 A. L. R. 1085. See, §§ 106.101, 106.171, and 106.251.”
In re Jud. Ditch No. 24, 87 F. Supp. 198 (D. Minnesota 1949). “§ 106.101. If the findings of the board or court do not require a dismissal, the engineer is required to make a detailed survey and specifications for the proposed improvement.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Cnty. of Clearwater, 210 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1973). “Thereupon, if it appears to the board or court that such ditch is out of repair, the board or court shall appoint an engineer to examine the ditch and make report of the necessary repairs, with the estimated cost thereof, and all details, plans and, specifications required to…”
In Re Repair of Jud. Ditch No. 1, Etc., 210 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1973). “* * * "(b) Upon the filing of the engineer's report, notice of hearing thereon shall be given as required by section 106.101. * * * * * * * * * "(d) In all proceedings before the court, the judge shall, by order, apportion the costs and expenses between the several counties in…”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Steele, 60 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 1953). “4(b); § 106.101, subds. 1, 2. See, M. S. A. 106.”
Edwards v. Massett, 164 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1969). “Thus, the nature and content of the preliminary hearing which resulted in the order appealed from are governed by § 106.101. Minn. St. 106.101, subd. 4, provides: “At said hearing or any adjournment thereof, if it shall appear that the proposed improvement is not feasible, and…”
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.