Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 117.086 (2026)

Noncontiguous Tracts, Treatment As Unit

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

Subdivision 1.Certain land considered as a unit.

In all eminent domain proceedings brought under this chapter noncontiguous tracts of land may be considered as a unit for the purpose of the assessment of the damages for a taking from only one of such tracts, provided that the use to which the tracts are applied is so connected, that the taking from one in fact damages the other.

Subd. 2.Notice of appeal.

In the event that an appeal is taken, a party claiming a unity in noncontiguous tracts shall give notice thereof in the notice of appeal as provided in section 117.145.

Subd. 3.Determination of taking, damage.

The petitioner, after receiving notice that the landowner claims a unity in noncontiguous tracts, may upon ten days' written notice to the landowner, move the court for its order determining whether, as a matter of law, the landowner has suffered a taking of, or damage to, noncontiguous tracts by reason of the eminent domain proceedings brought under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: Cnty. of Aitkin, relators v. Blandin Paper Co., 883 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 2016).
Cnty. of Aitkin, relators v. Blandin Paper Co., 883 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 4× “The larger-parcel rule may be considered in eminent domain proceedings if the proponent demonstrates that there is a unity of use such that the use to which the noncontiguous tracts of land are applied is so connected that the taking from one tract of land in fact damages the…”
Finke v. State, 521 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Finally, because Minn.Stat. § 117.086, which allows certain noncontiguous tracts of land to be regarded as a single unit for determining eminent domain compensation, has no direct application to this case, we do not address it.”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Holt, 207 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1973). · cites it 2× “The notice shall specify the particular award or failure to award appealed from, the nature and amount of the claim, the land to which it relates, and grounds of the appeal, and if applicable, the notice required in section 117.”
Cnty. of Dakota v. Lyndale Terminal, 529 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “The notice shall specify the particular award or failure to award appealed from, the nature and amount of the claim, the land to which it relates, and grounds of the appeal, and if applicable, the notice required in section 117.086. Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1994) (emphasis added).”
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.