Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 161.03 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ 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
MS 1974 [Repealed, 1976 c 166 s 119]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1945–1970 · leading case: Burnquist v. Cook, 19 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 1945).
Burnquist v. Cook, 19 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 1945). “1941, § 161.03 (Mason St. 1927, § 2554, as amended), the easement of ingress to and egress from trunk highway No.”
Paul v. Faricy, 37 N.W.2d 427 (Minn. 1949). “Paul city council as provided by § 161.03, subds. 3 and 4. The construction work — which was completed in 1936 — was performed by a private contractor under a contract with the state highway department.”
St. Paul Dredging Co. v. State, 107 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 1961). “1957, § 161.03, subd. 17, 1 which provided that the state waives immunity to suits for redress under highway contracts only as to parties in privity with it in such contracts and which accordingly would exclude Morse from bringing an action in its own name for the losses it…”
Froden v. Ranzenberger, 41 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 1950). “Section 161.03, subd. 7, provides in part as follows: “When during the construction work on any trunk highways it may be necessary to prevent traffic from passing over any portion of such highway in order to avoid damage to the work under way the commissioner of highways is…”
Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 19 N.W.2d 726 (Minn. 1945). “” Section 161.03 (§ 2554) defines the powers so granted.”
Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman, 91 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1958). “§§ 161.03, subd. 1, and 219.40. The right of railroads to reimbursement out of the highway fund for the nonbetterment cost of relocating railroad crossings has been recognized despite the fact that railroads do not have the same right to occupy highways as do other utilities.”
Hanson v. Bailey, 83 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 1957). “Was defendant driver Bailey negligent as a matter of law after he had once entered the construction zone? An automobile driver who knowingly ignores conspicuous “Boad Closed” and “Detour” signs posted at the entrance to a portion of a highway which, under authority of law (§…”
Johnson v. Callisto, 176 N.W.2d 754 (Minn. 1970). “” Plaintiffs further reason that under the provisions of § 161.03, subd. 2, the state has waived immunity for liability growing out of such a situation.”
Minneapolis E. Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 77 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 1956). “The section reads: *420 “Nothing in sections 161.03, 219.40, 219.403 shall be construed to change any existing law relating to the rights and liabilities of any city, * * * in connection with the construction or maintenance of any railroad crossing, grade separation, * * * or to…”
Otto B. Ashbach & Sons, Inc. v. State, 78 N.W.2d 446 (Minn. 1956). “” Ordinarily, a sovereign state is not liable for interest except where expressly or by reasonable construction of a contract or statute it has placed itself in a position of liability therefor.”
Petron v. Waldo, 139 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. 1965). “Plaintiff contends that the construction of *518 the present provision should be different from that given to its predecessor because a change in the legislative attitude toward the provision can be inferred from the legislative transfer of the misdemeanor provision from a…”
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.