Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.511 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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, 1952–1992 · leading case: In Re Establishment of Jud. Ditch No. 17, 263 Minn. 547 (Minn. 1962).
In Re Establishment of Jud. Ditch No. 17, 263 Minn. 547 (Minn. 1962). “10 was established January 13, 1902, and constructed in that year.”
Cnty. of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “Minn. Stat. § 106.511 (1984). While combination or hybrid actions are not statutorily prohibited, the logic of the two-track system requires that the prerequisites for both types of action be met.”
State Ex Rel. Mosloski v. Cnty. of Martin, 80 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1957). “6, which bears the heading “Appeal; repair, improvement or improvement of outlet,” provides: “In any proceeding before the board or court for the repair pursuant to petition, or for the improvement of any drainage system, or for public laterals thereto, or for the improvement of…”
Seidlitz v. Cnty. of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1952). “501) for the improvement of an existing system; (4) a proceeding (§ 106.511) to improve an outlet for an established ditch; and (5) a proceeding (§§ 106.”
Johnson v. Hedtke, 117 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 1962). “, Section 106.511 and the motion for such compliance and for a stay of proceedings herein is denied.”
Schoenfelder v. Beckman, 55 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1952). “2 To give practical effect to § 106.511, it must be construed to include proceedings for the improvement of an established ditch where such improvement will result in a greater flow of water into the outlet ditch than was the case when the drainage system was originally…”
In Re Cnty. Ditch No. 15, Chippewa Cnty., 238 Minn. 15 (Minn. 1952). “[2] To give practical effect to § 106.511, it must be construed to include proceedings for the improvement of an established ditch where such improvement will result in a greater flow of water into the outlet ditch than was the case when the drainage system was originally…”
In Re Petition of Lippmann, 81 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1957). “4 See, § 106.511; § 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.”
Schultz v. Cnty. of Chippewa, 57 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 1953). “In the adoption of the new drainage code provisions for the consolidation were eliminated, 4 but the old provisions for improvement of the outlet on petition of the county board or the owners of land adjacent thereto were retained (§ 106.511). It would seem that under our…”
Rekedall v. Cnty. of Redwood, 102 N.W.2d 682 (Minn. 1960). “6 provides: “In any proceeding before the board or court for the repair pursuant to petition, or for the improvement of any drainage system, or for public laterals thereto, or for the improvement of an outlet under section 106.511 or for the abandonment of any ditch, the same…”
Edwards v. Massett, 164 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1969). “Section 106.511 is one of the remedial provisions of the Drainage Code.”
Laue v. Cnty. of Faribault, 56 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1952). “If it becomes necessary to improve or enlarge the outlet ditch to prevent land drained by it from being inundated by water flowing into the ditch from the new ditch contemplated, provision is made therefor by § 106.511. Here, again, the district court would have jurisdiction of…”
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.