Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 106.531 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1985 c 172 s 133]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 8
cases, 1952–2000 · 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). “Section 106.531, supplementary to § 106.521, provides how drainage systems may be put to use as outlets.”
Oldenborg v. Hylen, 176 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 1970). ““* * * No lateral or lateral system 1 shall be constructed for the drainage of lands not assessed benefits for such existing public drainage system until express authority for the use of the existing system as an outlet for such lateral or lateral system has been granted…”
Rekedall v. Cnty. of Redwood, 102 N.W.2d 682 (Minn. 1960). “The proceedings herein were brought under § 106.531 of the new drainage code, adopted by L.”
Laue v. Cnty. of Faribault, 56 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1952). “Section 106.531, as far as here pertinent, reads: “After the construction of any county or judicial ditch, no public or private lateral, either open or tiled, for the drainage of land not assessed for benefits for such ditch, shall be constructed so as to use the ditch as an…”
In Re Jud. Ditch No. 7, Martin & Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165 (Minn. 1952). “Section 106.531, as far as here pertinent, reads: "After the construction of any county or judicial ditch, no public or private lateral, either open or tiled, for the drainage of land not assessed for benefits for such ditch, shall be constructed so as to use the ditch as an…”
In Re Improvement of Cnty. Ditch No. 1, Yellow Med. Cnty., 62 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. 1954). “* * * No lateral or lateral system shall be constructed for the drainage of lands not assessed benefits for such existing public drainage system until express authority for the use of the existing system as an outlet for such lateral or lateral system has been granted pursuant…”
Stensrud v. Lyon Cnty. Ditch 7, 609 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “] Minn.Stat. § 106.531 (1976). In Oltman , the appellant argued the statute required respondent to get permission from the county board before using a county ditch as an outlet.”
Westphal v. Schmalz, 169 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 1969). “” Section 106.531 conditions authorization for connection to the ditch system upon payment of a charge for an outlet to the ditch system and for the assessment of benefits to the land newly to be drained, just as it would have been done in the original pro *142 ceedings had such…”
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.