Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 116C.63 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Renumbered 216E.12]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: N. States Power Co. v. Williams, 343 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

N. States Power Co. v. Williams, 343 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 23× “On April 14, 1982, appellant, Go-Pher Evergreen, notified NSP of its election, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 116C.63, subd. 4 (1982), to require NSP to condemn a fee interest in the entire two parcels.”

Coop. Power Ass'n v. Aasand, 288 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 23× “This appeal arises from an action by respondents Harold and Inez Larsen to compel appellants Cooperative Power and United Power Associations to condemn a fee interest in land owned by respondents pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 116C.63, subd. 4 (1978). Section 116C.”

Coop. Power Ass'n v. Eaton, 284 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 8× “Alternatively, appellants requested that if the power companies were entitled to an interest in appellants’ properties the court “limit the title or easement * * * by defining the rights and privileges which the owner of the lands may exercise * * *” and that the landowners be…”

Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski, 860 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 116C.63, subd. 4 (1978). In addition, the statute required the utility to “divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming within five years” of the acquisition, or the land would be sold at a foreclosure sale.”

N. States Power Co. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Aleckson, 819 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The landowners announced their intention to compel the utility company to condemn a fee interest in the entire parcel under the Buy-the-Farm statute, then codified at section 116C.63, subdivision 4. Id. The utility company challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing…”

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.