Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 117.055 (2026)

Petition And Notice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Petition.

In all cases a petition, describing the desired land, stating by whom and for what purposes it is proposed to be taken, and giving the names of all persons appearing of record or known to the petitioner to be the owners thereof shall be presented to the district court of the county in which the land is situated praying for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the damages which may be occasioned by such taking.

Subd. 2.Notice.

(a) Notice of the objects of the petition and of the time and place of presenting the same shall be served at least 20 days before such time of presentation upon all persons named in the petition as owners as defined in section 117.025, subdivision 3, and upon all occupants of such land in the same manner as a summons in a civil action.

(b) The notice must state that:

(1) a party wishing to challenge the public use or public purpose, necessity, or authority for a taking must appear at the court hearing and state the objection or must appeal within 60 days of a court order; and

(2) a court order approving the public use or public purpose, necessity, and authority for the taking is final unless an appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party.

(c) If any such owner be not a resident of the state, or the owner's place of residence be unknown to the petitioner, upon the filing of an affidavit of the petitioner or the petitioner's agent or attorney, stating that the petitioner believes that such owner is not a resident of the state, and that the petitioner has mailed a copy of the notice to the owner at the owner's place of residence, or that after diligent inquiry the owner's place of residence cannot be ascertained by the affiant, then service may be made upon such owner by three weeks' published notice. If the state be an owner, the notice shall be served upon the attorney general. Any owner not served as herein provided shall not be bound by such proceeding except upon voluntarily appearing therein. Any owner shall be furnished a right-of-way map or plat of all that part of land to be taken upon written demand, provided that the petitioner shall have ten days from the receipt of the demand within which to furnish the same. Any plans or profiles which the petitioner has shall be made available to the owner for inspection.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2007).
Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] Under Minn.Stat. § 117.055, subd. 1 (2006), such a petition must name "all persons appearing of record or known to the petitioner to be the owners" of the land to be condemned.”
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 117.055 (2006) (describing petition and notice necessary to institute eminent domain proceedings); Barfnecht v.”
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf, 323 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “There is no claim that the Ward-Winkler proceedings did not begin before the effective date of the 1979 Transportation Appropriations Act.”
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski, 860 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the owner shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of…”
Cnty. of Dakota v. Lyndale Terminal, 529 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 8× “” Significantly, the legislature uses the word “persons” in section 117.”
Matter of City of Shakopee, 295 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 2× “Under these circumstances, it would appear that the city should have named the MWCC in its original petition under Minn.Stat. §§ 117.055 and 117.-025, subd.”
Coop. Power Ass'n v. Aasand, 288 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 2× “13 is proposed to bé acquired for the construction of a site or route by eminent domain proceedings, the property owner shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous land which he owns and elects in writing to transfer to the…”
N. States Power Co. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Aleckson, 831 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 2× “and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055.... The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose…”
N. States Power Co. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Aleckson, 819 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055.... The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for…”
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 895 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 117.055 , subd. 1 (2016). As the holder of a mortgage interest on the property at the time the access point was closed, Vermillion was an “owner.”
In Re Condemnation Proceeding for the Wilmarth Line of the CU Proj., 380 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “1982); Minn.Stat. § 117.055 (1982). We are not deciding here that any other landowners may appear and argue a certificate of need and obtain fees under Minn.”
City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line R.R., 742 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 117.055 , 117.065 (2004). The district court then holds an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the petition should be granted; and approving the public use or public purpose, necessity, and authority for the taking.”
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.