Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 216B. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 216B.47 (2026)

Acquisition By Eminent Domain

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to preclude a municipality from acquiring the property of a public utility by eminent domain proceedings; provided that damages to be paid in eminent domain proceedings must include the original cost of the property less depreciation, loss of revenue to the utility, expenses resulting from integration of facilities, and other appropriate factors. A municipality seeking to acquire the property of a public utility in eminent domain proceedings may not acquire the right to furnish electric service during the pendency of the proceedings through the use of section 117.042 but may petition the commission under section 216B.44 for service rights. For purposes of this section, a public utility includes a cooperative electric association.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Coop. Power Ass'n, 830 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Coop. Power Ass'n, 830 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 50× “The City then filed a condemnation petition to begin municipal electric service to residents of Americana Estates under Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 (2012). The Red River Valley Cooperative Power Association (RRVC), which previously served Americana Estates, did not dispute the…”
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Coop. Power Ass'n, 811 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 71× “On appeal from the award of damages to Red River, the city argues that (1) the district court misapplied Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 when it determined that the statute’s reference to four non-fair-market-value factors for calculating damages precludes consideration of fair market…”
City of Rochester v. People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 483 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 12× “44 or Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 to the City of Rochester in its efforts to acquire the facilities and service area rights of People’s Cooperative Power Association, Inc.”
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Elec. Coop., 303 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “Thus the next sec *62 tion in chapter 216B commands, “Nothing in Laws 1974, Chapter 429 [codified as 216B] shall be construed to preclude a municipality from acquiring the property of a public utility by eminent domain proceedings * * *.”
City of Rochester v. People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 466 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 22× “As authority for its argument, the City cites Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 (1988): Nothing in [Chapter 216B] shall be construed to preclude a municipality from acquiring the property of a public utility [including a cooperative electric association] by eminent domain proceedings;…”
Rochester v. People's Co-op. Power Ass'n, 466 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 22× “As authority for its argument, the City cites Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 (1988): Nothing in [Chapter 216B] shall be construed to preclude a municipality from acquiring the property of a public utility [including a cooperative electric association] by eminent domain proceedings;…”
Rochester v. Peoples Co-op. Power Ass'n, 505 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “44-46, or to proceed by eminent domain, as authorized by Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 (1990). The district court, however, invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the City's condemnation proceedings, concluding the matter lay more within…”
City of Rochester v. Peoples Coop. Power Ass'n, 505 N.W.2d 621 (1993). “44-46, or to proceed by eminent domain, as authorized by Minn.Stat. § 216B.47 (1990). The district court, however, invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the City’s condemnation proceedings, concluding the matter lay more within…”
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.