Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.471 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133; 1985 c 102 s 2; 1Sp1985 c 16 art 2 s 19 subd 2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1952–1997 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 359 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 1984).
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. § 106.471, subd. 4 (1982). Two sections of the "repair" statute are relevant to this appeal: The term "repair" as used in this section means restoring all or a part of a ditch system as nearly as practicable to the same condition as when originally constructed or…”
Braun v. Cnty. of Renville, 70 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1955). “This contract was the result of proceedings emanating from a petition for repair under § 106.471, which was filed with the board on April 19, 1950, and granted by that body on April 10,1951.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Cnty. of Clearwater, 210 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1973). “Since application of the governing statute, § 106.471, to the undisputed facts renders Clearwater liable for its pro rata share of “reasonable” and “proper” costs incurred for “necessary” repairs, we reverse and hold that Clearwater is obligated to reimburse Red Lake for 63/82…”
Taylor v. Cnty. of Sherburne, 67 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1954). “501, 2 governing improvements to existing public ditches, rather than under § 106.471, 3 *306 relating to repairs thereto; and (2) the court’s finding that repair costs exceeded 10 percent of the original cost of ditch No.”
Seidlitz v. Cnty. of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1952). “An appeal was taken to the district court, as provided by §§ 106.471, subd. 7(d), and 106.631. The jury in the district court found appellant’s land benefited to the extent of $408, and the trial court denied his motion for judgment or a new trial, as above stated.”
In Re Repair of Jud. Ditch No. 1, Etc., 210 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1973). “Since application of the governing statute, § 106.471, to the undisputed facts renders Clearwater liable for its pro rata share of "reasonable" and "proper" costs incurred for "necessary" repairs, we reverse and hold that Clearwater is obligated to reimburse Red Lake for 63/82…”
In Re Improvement of Cnty. Ditch No. 11, Martin Cnty., 91 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1958). “The gift to the credit of the ditch fund could not revive a proceeding which had legally terminated. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that provisions of statutes regulating the construction of public drains which are designed for the protection of landowners must be strictly…”
Coon Creek Watershed Dist. v. State Env't Quality Bd., 315 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1982). “” Minn.Stat. § 106.471, subd. 2(a) (1980) (emphasis added).”
Oelke v. Cnty. of Faribault, 70 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1955). “*556 Under our present repair statute, § 106.471, the cost of repairs are assessed pro rata against the lands theretofore determined to have participated in benefits.”
Larson v. Freeborn Cnty., 126 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. 1964). “501, which requires the approval of at least 26 percent of the property owners affected; and that the actions of the board were illegal and unauthorized and subject to collateral attack in a court of equity.”
Black v. Nw. Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 167 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. 1969). “§ 106.471, subds. 5 and 6. A review of the viewers’ report can be more effectively made, moreover, if benefits and damages are separately identified in the viewers’ report.”
Cnty. of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “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, § 106.471, to repair an established drainage system * * *; (3) a proceeding, § 106.”
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.