Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 472A. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 472A.03 (2026)

[Repealed]

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

[Repealed, 1987 c 291 s 244]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1978–1996 · leading case: City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 9× “Appellants contend, first, that errors in this notice rendered it insufficient to meet the requirement of notice in § 472A.03. 2 Specifically, they contend that the typographical error referring to “Districts 653 A & B” rather than “53 A & B,” the lack of reference to the…”
City of Duluth v. State, 390 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 472A.03 (1984) allows a municipality to use eminent domain to acquire “developments aimed at improving the physical facilities, quality of life and quality of transportation” consistent with a development program for a designated district.”
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 2× “All of these ancillary agreements, however, are permissible under L.1971, c. 677, and other statutes.”
Shortridge v. Daubney, 400 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “Wurtele involved a condemnation proceeding in which notice was issued pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 472A.03 which provided: A municipality may * * * after public hearings, notice of which shall have been *844 published in the official newspaper of the municipality, * * * designate…”
City of Jamestown v. Leevers Supermarkets, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 1996). “126 (1994)), a municipality could use eminent domain to acquire “developments aimed at improving the physical facilities, quality of life and quality of transportation” consistent with a development program for a designated district. Applying a limited, arbitrary and capricious…”
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.