Minnesota Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law Update

We will be attending an upcoming Hennepin County Bar CLE on the latest developments in Minnesota eminent domain and condemnation law.  The seminar will take place on June 29th from 8:30-4pm.  Read more about the MN CLE eminent domain seminar.

There have been several eminent domain cases heard recently before the court of appeals and state supreme court in response to recent, and some not so recent, eminent domain statutory changes.

On the list of cases to be analyzed at the CLE is County of Dakota vs. Cameron, which involves Minn. Stat. 117.187, also known as the ‘Minimum Compensation Statue’.  Our firm is representing the property owner (Cameron) in this case, and our petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court was recently granted. This is the first case on this issue to be reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Read more about Cameron and the Minimum Compensation Statute.

Also on the docket is the controversy over the CapX high voltage transmission lines and compensation for landowners whose property was taken for this project.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently heard arguments regarding the determination of just compensation based upon the ‘Buy the Farm Act’, which was enacted in 1973.  ‘Buy the Farm’ allows a landowner to force the utility company to buy their entire property rather than forcing them to live beneath a high voltage transmission power line.  The focus of the case is the landowners’ right to relocation compensation and other compensation, available both under Minn. Stat. ch. 117 (Minn. Stat.117.187 and 117.152), the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act and federal law.  Learn more about our opinion on MN Buy the Farm.

Also a hot topic of discussion will be the award of attorney’s fees in the recent Supreme Court DeCook decision.  The case involved a runway safety expansion project that limited land use for a property owner (DeCook) located near the Rochester International Airport.  The DeCook’s brought an inverse condemnation action, alleging that the change in zoning and land uses for the runway safety expansion constituted a taking.  After 3 appeals, the courts found the diminution in value to the property constituted a taking.  The court granted an award for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  Read more about the case.


Subscribe to rss

No Comments Yet.

Leave a Reply

Contact Us for a Free, No Obligation Consultation

Fields marked with an * are required


” …It is so refreshing to know a law office that does what it says it will do…you are truly an expert in this field and I am greatful…”

- Jerald Lang,Marshfield, WI

“[I was] very satisfied. [We] got more money than the DOT offered. [It was] great working with Biersdorf & Associates.”

- Roland Thomas,Lowman, NY

“Dan listened to me; some of the attorney’s I have spoken to around my state do all the talking, but do not hear what we are saying.”

- Theresa Cornell,Milton, WV

Read More