Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.521 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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 10
cases, 1952–1992 · leading case: In Re Petition of Lippmann, 81 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1957).
In Re Petition of Lippmann, 81 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1957). “” 2 Section 106.521 of the drainage act provides how persons owning property in the vicinity of an existing public drainage system may petition for a lateral or a lateral system connecting such lands with the existing drainage system.”
Seidlitz v. Cnty. of Faribault, 55 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1952). “511) to improve an outlet for an established ditch; and (5) a proceeding (§§ 106.521 and 106.531) to establish laterals to drainage systems already established under (1).”
Laue v. Cnty. of Faribault, 56 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1952). “Respondent contends that it is a lateral and is governed by § 106.521. There is much merit in appellants’ contention.”
In Re Jud. Ditch No. 7, Martin & Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165 (Minn. 1952). “The course of the proposed ditch follows almost the identical course of that part of branch S originally proposed but eliminated in the final order of the court establishing ditch No.”
In Re Improvement of Cnty. Ditch No. 1, Yellow Med. Cnty., 62 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. 1954). “In the first place, appellant claims that the substance of §§ 106.521 and 106.611 should have been included in the instructions to the jury.”
Cnty. of Swift v. Boyle, 481 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “471, to repair an established drainage system * * *; (3) a proceeding, § 106.501, for the improvement of an existing system; (4) a proceeding, § 106.”
Maxwell v. Cnty. of Freeborn, 386 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “-511) to improve an outlet for an established ditch; and (5) a proceeding (§§ 106.521 and 106.531) to establish laterals to drainage systems already established under (1).”
Rekedall v. Cnty. of Redwood, 102 N.W.2d 682 (Minn. 1960). “*77 We held in the Lippmann case, where the proceedings had been initiated under §§ 106.521 and 106.531, that these provisions are supplementary to each other and, while they are to be read with other provisions of c.”
Smith v. Laue, 99 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1959). “521 read as follows: “Persons owning property in the vicinity of an existing public drainage system may petition for a lateral or a lateral system connecting such lands with the drainage system.”
Olson v. Cnty. of Faribault, 177 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1970). “Specific authority did not have to be given for the lateral to empty into Ditch No.”
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.