Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.501 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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 18
cases, 1952–1992 · leading case: Fischer v. Macht, 114 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 1962).
Fischer v. Macht, 114 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 1962). “Thus, it is in accordance with the provisions of § 106.501. 1 *213 Appellants indicate that they would not seriously attack the petition as insufficient under § 106.”
Jagodzinske v. Cnty. of Martin, 58 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. 1953). “3, a tile ditch, may be improved by the construction of an auxiliary open ditch along the main tile line thereof as an enlargement of am ecoisting ditch authorized under § 106.501, as the court held, or whether the improvement described constitutes the construction of a new…”
Maxwell v. Cnty. of Freeborn, 386 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Freeborn County Board of Commissioners appeals from a May 7, 1985 judgment dismissing its petition for improvement of an existing drainage system under Minn. Stat. § 106.501 (1984). We affirm. FACTS Judicial Ditch No.”
In Re Improvement of Co. Ditch No. 21, Redwood Co., 262 Minn. 210 (Minn. 1962). “Thus, it is in accordance with the provisions of § 106.501. [1] *213 Appellants indicate that they would not seriously attack the petition as insufficient under § 106.”
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. § 106.501, subd. 1 (1982). Petitioners for an improvement must file a bond payable to the county in the event the improvement is not constructed.”
Taylor v. Cnty. of Sherburne, 67 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1954). “2(b), rather than an “improvement” governed by § 106.501. Section 106.471 specifies the procedure to be followed where work becomes necessary to “maintain” the ditch or to “restore” “a ditch system” to the “same condition as when originally constructed.”
Janssen v. Cnty. of Chippewa, 98 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1959). “The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether upon a petition pursuant to § 106.501 for an improvement of an existing draintile, where the petition specifically requests that the existing tile is inadequate and that it be improved by larger and adequate tiling, the…”
Seidlitz v. Cnty. of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1952). “471) to repair an established drainage system, which is the proceeding involved in the case at bar; (3) a proceeding (§ 106.501) for the improvement of an existing system; (4) a proceeding (§ 106.”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Steele, 60 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 1953). “Thus, the "improvement" statute, § 106.501, provides for awarding damages to owners of land damaged by such work.”
Oldenborg v. Hylen, 176 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 1970). “531 and excluded by the language of § 106.501, subd. 3. The trial court nevertheless found that the addition of these disputed branches “does not constitute an extension of the original ditch system,” and in its memorandum it wrote that it was not an “unlawful extension.”
Oelke v. Cnty. of Faribault, 70 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1955). “Under our improvement statute, § 106.501, there must be a new determination of damages and benefits, and subsequent assessments for repairs thereafter are based on the benefits so determined.”
Laue v. Cnty. of Faribault, 56 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1952). “f the notice we find the following: “Now, therefore, the petitioners and all owners of the several tracks [tracts] of land, and corporations, public or private, affected by the said drainage system, are hereby notified that a hearing on said report of said engineer will be held…”
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.