Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 106. DRAINAGE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 106.77 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1947 c 143 s 67]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1952–1970 · leading case: Oelke v. Cnty. of Faribault, 70 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oelke v. Cnty. of Faribault, 70 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 3× “1941, § 106.77, et seq. 3 Under the similar prior law we held that the court could not order the removal of defects in existing drainage systems under a petition for consolidation.”
Schoenfelder v. Beckman, 55 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1952). “1945, § 106.77.) It was found to be impracticable to consolidate the two proceedings, so this provision was omitted in the revision of our drainage act in 1947 (L.”
In Re Cnty. Ditch No. 15, Chippewa Cnty., 238 Minn. 15 (Minn. 1952). “1945, § 106.77.) It was found to be impracticable to consolidate the two proceedings, so this provision was omitted in the revision of our drainage act in 1947 (L.”
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.”
In Re Establishment of Jud. Ditch No. 17, 263 Minn. 547 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 2× “511] is intended to cover the subject matter of Section 106.77 and also Chapter 33, Laws 1945.”
Johnson v. Hedtke, 117 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 1962). · cites it 2× “511] is intended to cover the subject matter of Section 106.77 and also Chapter 33, Laws 1945.”
Edwards v. Massett, 164 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1969). “1945, § 106.77, to petition for improvement of the outlet or consolidation of the system prior to the time the ditch was authorized.”
Olson v. Cnty. of Faribault, 177 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1970). “We said that to permit any landowner indirectly affected by a ditch improvement to be a party to the improvement proceedings would delay the proceedings unduly. However, we noted that the appellants could move to have the outlet ditch enlarged and thus were not without a remedy.”
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.