273 Minn.
Volume 273 — Minnesota Reports
75 opinions
- 273 Minn. 1State v. Thompson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 40Hommerding v. Clarence Landwehr Heavy Moving (1966)
- 273 Minn. 42State v. Housker (1966)
- 273 Minn. 46Prink v. Tonak (1966)
- 273 Minn. 57State v. Waldron (1966)
- 273 Minn. 73Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company (1966)
- 273 Minn. 78State v. Schmit (1966)
- 273 Minn. 91O'CONNELL v. Jackson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 97Palmi v. Palmi (1966)
- 273 Minn. 104McDermott v. Bremson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 109Miller v. Raaen (1966)
- 273 Minn. 121Wimperis v. Saltzinger (1966)
- 273 Minn. 126G. C. Kohlmier, Inc. v. Mollenhauer (1966)
- 273 Minn. 135State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg (1966)
- 273 Minn. 152Olson v. Thompson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 155Koch v. Han-Shire Investments, Inc. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 169State v. Ester (1966)
- 273 Minn. 177State Ex Rel. Ballinger v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 181State v. Shake (1966)
- 273 Minn. 187State Ex Rel. Ogg v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 197Validity of Claim of Assembly Homes, Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County (1966)
- 273 Minn. 205Stirratt v. Kane (1966)
- 273 Minn. 210State v. McKinnon (1966)
- 273 Minn. 214Wm. Mueller & Sons v. Chanhassen Redi Mix (1966)
- 273 Minn. 221State v. Tolberg (1966)
- 273 Minn. 223State v. Holmes (1966)
- 273 Minn. 228State v. Adams (1966)
- 273 Minn. 231State ex rel. LaRose v. Granquist (1966)
- 273 Minn. 236Scott-Peabody & Associates v. Northern Leasing Corp. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 240State Ex Rel. Ahern v. Young (1966)
- 273 Minn. 249State v. Clifford (1966)
- 273 Minn. 256Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Co. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 266State, by Mondale v. Bohnen (1966)
<bold>Eminent domain — condemnation proceedings — use of property</bold> <bold>by condemnee after taking — offset against award —</bold> <bold>procedure</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The proper procedure in condemnation cases where the condemnor seeks to offset the value of the use of the condemned premises by the condemnee after the date of the taking is this:</block_quote> <block_quote> (a) The condemnor should give timely notice in writing of the amount claimed as an offset.</block_quote> <block_quote> (b) The condemnee should give timely notice that he will contest the offset claim if he does not accede to it.</block_quote> <block_quote> (c) The issue framed should be submitted by special interrogatory to the jury trying the main action unless the parties agree otherwise.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — determination of value of use</bold>. <block_quote> 2. In determining the value of the use of condemned property between the taking and relinquishment of possession, the question to be answered by the testimony of competent witnesses is: What was the reasonable market value of the use of the property taken for the period of the condemnee's possession, having in mind the state's right to demand possession of it in a limited period of time?</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — ceiling</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The ceiling upon offset for use of condemned property by the condemnee after the date of the taking (in the absence of agreement otherwise) is the interest which would accrue upon the amount awarded between (a) the date of the taking, and (b) the date of relinquishment of possession, without reference to prepayment of all or any part of the award by the condemnor.</block_quote>
- 273 Minn. 272State ex rel. Vicklund v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 274Kochevar v. City of Gilbert (1966)
- 273 Minn. 278Kiaka v. SS Kresge Company (1966)
- 273 Minn. 281Monson v. Matheson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 284Fotopoulos v. Birkeland (1966)
- 273 Minn. 286State Ex Rel. Danielsen v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 293LaFond v. Sczepanski (1966)
- 273 Minn. 297Burkel v. Pro-Vid-All Mills, Inc. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 301Minnetonka Electric Co. v. Village of Golden Valley (1966)
- 273 Minn. 309Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 315State v. Grunau (1966)
- 273 Minn. 332Lutheran Free Ch. v. Lutheran Free Ch.(not Merged) (1966)
- 273 Minn. 345Ginsberg v. Pratt's Express Co. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 356State v. Ingram (1966)
- 273 Minn. 361State Ex Rel. Stubben v. Board of County Commissioners (1966)
- 273 Minn. 372State v. Mathiasen (1966)
- 273 Minn. 380State Ex Rel. Schwirtz v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 386In Re Appeals of Schluter (1966)
- 273 Minn. 390Jenson v. Olson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 394State v. Johnson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 407First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. McHasco Electric, Inc. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 419Balts v. Balts (1966)
- 273 Minn. 441Kopp v. Rechtzigel (1966)
- 273 Minn. 444Kappers v. Blaul (1966)
- 273 Minn. 453Oehler v. Falstrom (1966)
- 273 Minn. 462Common School District No. 2667 v. Anderson (1966)
- 273 Minn. 470Schulz v. Feigal (1966)
- 273 Minn. 481Haverland v. Twin City Milk Producers Ass'n (1966)
- 273 Minn. 491Locke v. Henry (1966)
- 273 Minn. 494State v. Novak (1966)
- 273 Minn. 499State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Tahash (1966)
- 273 Minn. 504Viebahn v. Gudim (1966)
- 273 Minn. 509Lommen v. Lysfjord (1966)
<bold>New trial — grounds — misconduct of counsel</bold>. <block_quote> In an action for attorney's fees, it is held that final argument of plaintiff's counsel, provoked by improper statements made by defendant's<page_number>Page 510</page_number> attorney, was not so disparaging as to make a new trial necessary.</block_quote>
- 273 Minn. 512State v. Tellock (1966)
- 273 Minn. 515Knaeble v. Custom Tool & Manufacturing Co. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 518Crnkovich v. Independent School District No. 701 (1966)
- 273 Minn. 525Campbell v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 537Willmore v. Willmore (1966)
- 273 Minn. 544Branch v. Boyer & Gilfillan Motor Co. (1966)
- 273 Minn. 547City of St. Louis Park v. County of Hennepin (1966)
- 273 Minn. 551Riley v. Riley (1966)
- 273 Minn. 553State v. Bosnich (1966)