It is hereby found and declared that in the interest of and to promote the general welfare of the people and to conserve the natural beauty of areas adjacent to certain highways, it is necessary to reasonably and effectively regulate and control the erection or maintenance of advertising devices on land adjacent to such highways. It is further declared that inasmuch as outdoor advertising is an integral part of the business and marketing function, an established segment of the national economy, and a legitimate commercial use of property adjacent to roads and highways, it should be allowed to operate where other business and commercial activities are conducted, and the regulation of outdoor advertising should occur by the application of reasonable regulatory standards consistent with customary use of outdoor advertising and zoning principles in this state which will properly and adequately carry out each and all of the purposes of Laws 1971, chapter 883; that the regulatory standards set forth in Laws 1971, chapter 883, are consistent with customary use in this state. It is the intention hereby to comply with the policies declared by Congress in United States Code, title 23, "Highways."
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Hopf, 323 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Since Naegele has raised no procedural objections, the question is whether 37(F)(4) is within the granted power and is reasonable. The stated purposes of the Act are to “promote the general welfare of the people and * * * conserve the natural beauty of areas adjacent to certain…”
Blocher Outdoor Advert. Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 347 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “ANALYSIS I Minnesota’s policy regarding advertising along interstate highways is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 173.01 (1982). The legislature declared that to “conserve the natural beauty of areas adjacent to certain highways, it is necessary to reasonably and effectively regulate ⅞…”
State v. Weber-Connelly, Naegele, Inc., 448 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
“Whether or not personal property is com-pensable under Chapter 117 is irrelevant in this case since Chapter 173 clearly permits compensation for personal property interests.”
St. Louis Park Post No. 5632 v. City of St. Louis Park, 687 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Clear Channel contends that the only issue before the district court was its right to compensation under Minn.Stat. § 173.01 and the HBA, and therefore the district court erred by awarding summary judgment to the city on all of Clear Channel’s other claims.”
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.