Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 117. EMINENT DOMAIN
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2026)

Minimum Compensation

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When an owner must relocate, the amount of damages payable, at a minimum, must be sufficient for an owner to purchase a comparable property in the community and not less than the condemning authority's payment or deposit under section 117.042, to the extent that the damages will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner of the property. For the purposes of this section, "owner" is defined as the person or entity that holds fee title to the property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: Cnty. of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cnty. of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 24× “” Minn.Stat. § 117.187. Cameron also challenges the court’s award of attorney fees under MinmStat.”
N. States Power Co. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Aleckson, 831 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 22× “” Appellants also sought (1) minimum compensation •- pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 117.187, which requires the utility to pay damages sufficient for the owner to purchase comparable property in the community, and (2) relocation assistance pursuant to Minn.”
N. States Power Co. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Aleckson, 819 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “Does a landowner become eligible for minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 by making a Buy-the-Farm election under Minn.”
Great River Energy v. David D. Swedzinski, 860 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “In Aleckson we held that landowners exercising their option under the Buy-the-Farm statute were entitled to awards of minimum compensation, Minn.Stat. § 117.187 (2014), and relocation benefits, Minn.”
Cnty. of Dakota v. Cameron, 812 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “In this eminent-domain proceeding, appellant challenges the district court’s award of damages under Minnesota’s minimum-compensation statute, Minn. Stat. § 117.187 . Appellant argues that the district court misconstrued section 117.”
City of Cloquet v. Crandall, 824 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 44× “Minnesota’s minimum-compensation statute restricts itself to benefit owners, and it defines “owner” as “the person or entity that holds fee title to the property.”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Bhakta, 922 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Bhaktas appealed the commissioners' decision to the district court, where the main *196 issue was the minimum compensation the Bhaktas were owed under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2018). Trial was scheduled for April 4, 2017.”
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.