Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.201 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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 7
cases, 1951–1986 · leading case: In Re Improvement of Cnty. Ditch No. 11, Martin Cnty., 91 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1958).
In Re Improvement of Cnty. Ditch No. 11, Martin Cnty., 91 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1958). “The engineer’s and viewers’ report then on file showed that, as required by § 106.201, subd. 1, the estimated benefits were more than the estimated damages plus the cost of construction.”
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. § 106.201, subd. 2 (1982). (2) The contract for construction must provide that the work will be performed according to the engineer's plans and specifications.”
Petition of Ittel, 386 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “ISSUE Is the evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the Joint County Ditch Board acted arbitrarily and unlawfully when it established judicial ditch number 23? ANALYSIS Minn.Stat. § 106.201, subd. 2 (1984) states the criteria that must be met before a…”
In Re Petition of Lippmann, 81 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1957). “511; § 106.201, subd. 2, as to how and upon what conditions a drainage system, when all proceedings are in order as by a statute provided, may be established giving due regard to the engineer’s and viewers’ reports.”
Oelke v. Cnty. of Faribault, 110 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1961). “” The questions presented by this particular appeal are, as indicated by §§ 106.201, subd. 2, and 106.631, subd. 4, whether the estimated benefits are greater than the total estimated cost, including damages, and whether the order appealed from is lawful and reasonable.”
In Re Cnty. Ditch No. 1-A, Yellow Med. Cnty., 47 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 1951). “4, expressly authorizes the court to "examine the whole matter and receive evidence to determine whether the findings made by the county board can be sustained." It further directs that if the order appealed from is arbitrary, unlawful, or not supported by the evidence, the…”
Schroeder v. Busack, 47 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 1951). “4, expressly authorizes the court to “examine the whole matter and receive evidence to determine whether the findings made by the county board can be sustained.” It further directs that if the order appealed from is arbitrary, unlawful, or not supported by the evidence, the…”
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.