§
Subdivision 1.Establishment and supervision.
County highways shall be established, located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, improved, maintained, revoked, or vacated by the several counties. The several county boards shall have general supervision over county highways, including those highways other than cartways within their respective counties established by judicial authority, and they may appropriate and expend sums of money from their respective county road and bridge funds as they deem necessary for the establishment, location, construction, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance, or vacation of such highways.
§
Subd. 2.Acquisition.
They may acquire by purchase, gift, or eminent domain proceedings as provided by law, all necessary right-of-way for such highways, purchase all necessary road material, machinery, tools, and supplies needed therefor; and may construct buildings or rent, or acquire by purchase, gift, or eminent domain proceedings, grounds and buildings necessary for the storing and housing of such material, machinery, tools, and supplies.
§
Subd. 3.Weight and load restrictions.
The county board, or the county engineer if so authorized by the board, may impose weight and load restrictions on any highway under its jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cent. Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large, 18 F.4th 989 (8th Cir. 2021).
“And a separate statute, Minn. Stat. § 163.02 , subdiv. 3 provides, “The county board, or the county engineer if so authorized by the board, may impose weight and load restrictions on any highway under its jurisdiction.”
Itasca Cnty. v. Carpenter, 602 N.W.2d 887 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “04 (1996), and is empowered to acquire necessary rights-of-way for highways pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 163.02 (1996). Under Minn.Stat.”
Minder v. Anoka Cnty., 677 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Counties have a statutory duty to construct, reconstruct, improve, and maintain county highways under Minn.Stat. § 163.02, subd. 1 (1998). But where a plaintiff alleges that a county caused his or her injuries and the county alleges an immunity defense, a court does not get to…”
Mace v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 42 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1950).
· cites it 4× “01 imposes upon the town the duty of general care and supervision of all town roads within its borders and of providing the equipment and materials for the construction and repair thereof, the work was done by the county and was to be paid in part with town funds which the town…”
Cent. Specialties, Inc. v. Large, 482 F. Supp. 3d 886 (D. Minn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 163.02 , subd. 3. The record further demonstrates that Large had concerns that portions of the proposed haul roads at issue could not sustain the type of load proposed by CSI over the course of the project, and that his concerns were affirmed through MnDOT…”
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.