§
Subdivision 1.Preemption.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, all condemning authorities, including home rule charter cities and all other political subdivisions of the state, must exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, including all procedures, definitions, remedies, and limitations. Additional procedures, remedies, or limitations that do not deny or diminish the substantive and procedural rights and protections of owners under this chapter may be provided by other law, ordinance, or charter.
§
Subd. 2.Requirement of public use or public purpose.
Eminent domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose.
§
Subd. 3.Exceptions.
This chapter does not apply to the taking of property under laws relating to drainage or to town roads when those laws themselves expressly provide for the taking and specifically prescribe the procedure. The taking of property for a project undertaken by a watershed district under chapter 103D or for a project undertaken by a drainage authority under chapter 103E may be carried out under the procedure provided by those chapters.
Notes of Decisions
Jensen Field Relocation Claims Jensen Field, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, 817 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 12× “In this certiorari appeal, involving a dispute about whether relators-tenants are eligible for relocation benefits under the URA, relators argue that (1) the use by respondent-landlord of one of its vice presidents to serve as the hearing officer violated Minn.Stat. §§ 117.012,…”
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Coop. Power Ass'n, 811 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 117.012, subd. 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that chapter 117 is not limited to condemnation of real estate but also applies to utilities.”
Port Auth. of St. Paul v. Rlr, Inc., 758 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “214, § 1 at 195 (codified as Minn. Stat. § 117.012 , subd. 2 (2006)). In 2006, the legislature also defined “public use” or “public purpose” for the purposes of Minn.”
In re Qwest Corp., 918 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “04 allows a utility to request MnDOC to determine a just and reasonable charge based on diminution in value of the railroad's land, the statute also expressly preserves the option of a utility to initiate condemnation proceedings under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.012 -.57 (2016) (chapter…”
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Dep't of Transp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The circularity of this argument is evident; condemnation under the statutory procedures is required upon the “exercise [of] the power of eminent domain,” Minn. Stat. § 117.012 , subd. 1 (2014), but nothing in chapter 117 suggests that its requirements are triggered by a…”
State ex rel. Comm'r of Transp. v. Kettleson, 801 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 117.012, subd. 1 (2010). The first step in condemnation cases is to determine whether a project has a valid public purpose or public use.”
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.