At any time within 40 days from the date that the report has been filed, any party to the proceedings may appeal to the district court from any award of damages embraced in the report, or from any omission to award damages, by: (1) filing with the court administrator a notice of such appeal, and (2) serving by mail or E-Service a copy of such notice on all persons who are shown in the petitioner's affidavit of mailing, required by section 117.115, subdivision 2, as having been mailed a notice of the report of the commissioners, and on the petitioner.
If any notice of appeal is filed, any other party may appeal within 50 days from the date that the report was filed by: (1) filing with the court administrator a notice of the appeal; and (2) serving the notice of appeal by mail or E-Service, as provided in this section. Service by mail is deemed effective upon deposit of the notice in the United States mail, by first class mail, with postage prepaid, and addressed to each person served at the address shown in the petitioner's affidavit of mailing required by section 117.115, subdivision 2, or their last known address. Proof of service by mail of a notice of appeal shall be filed with the court administrator promptly following the mailing of any notice of appeal. The notice of appeal 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1977–2014 · leading case:
Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2007).
Woodhall v. State, 738 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 78× “Respondent State of Minnesota filed motions to dismiss the appeals, and the district court granted both motions, holding that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the appeals because appellants failed to serve notice of appeal on all parties entitled to service…”
Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Adelmann, 590 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. 1999).
· cites it 102× “2 (1998) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from á condemnation commissioners’ award; and (2) whether a condemning authority complies with Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1998) by serving notice of appeal from a condemnation commissioners’ award on a party’s attorney but not…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 194 Lakeville v. Tollefson Dev., Inc., 506 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 12× “194 (the school district) challenges the district court’s order denying its motion to dismiss respondents’ appeal of a condemnation award under Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1992) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 117.145. The district court or jury hearing the case must then reassess the damages de novo.”
Judd v. State Ex Rel. Humprey, 488 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 11× “On December 9, 1991, the state mailed a notice of award letter to respondent and informed him the period for appealing the award would expire on January 11, 1992, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1990). On January 10, 1992, respondent filed a notice of appeal with the district…”
Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Golden Spike, Inc., 536 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 10× “ISSUE Did the district court err when it determined that the parties had complied with Minn.Stat. § 117.145 in seeking de novo review of the commissioners’ award? ANALYSIS A party may receive de novo review of the condemnation commissioners’ award by filing with the court…”
Hous. & Redevel. Auth. v. Adelmann, 590 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. 1999).
· cites it 102× “2 (1998) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from a condemnation commissioners' award; and (2) whether a condemning authority complies with Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1998) by serving notice of appeal from a condemnation commissioners' award on a party's attorney but not…”
Helgeson v. Gisselbeck, 375 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “The Helgesons' failure to assert the condemnation clause before the commissioners is not, by itself, fatal to this claim. Dissatisfied parties to a condemnation proceeding may appeal to the district court from "any award of damages embraced in the report" or "from any omission…”
Fine v. City of Minneapolis, 391 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “That interest must be sought, however, in the condemnation proceedings, and the time limitation for perfecting such a claim is set out at Minn.Stat. § 117.145 (1984). Although both the plaintiffs and the City of Minneapolis assert that it is inequitable for the county to retain…”
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.