PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• CHAPTER 15 Alevizos y.Metropolitan When the government has taken property without formally using its eminent Airports Comm'n,298 Minn. domain powers,the property owner has a cause of action for inverse 471,216 N.W.2d 651 (1974). condemnation under the eminent domain laws. Grossman/n vs.v.State by Humphrey.571 N W.2d 47 (Minn.Ct.App.1997). , Minn.Stat.ch. 117. Northern States Power Co.y. Inverse condemnation is an action against a governmental defendant to Minnesota Metro.Council,684 N.W.2d 485(Minn.2004). recover the value of property that has been taken in fact by the government defendant, even though no formal exercise of the statutory power of eminent Johnson v.City (Minn. 2003). domain has been attempted by the taking agency. 667 N.W.2d 109(Minn.2003). , See past XIX-13 of this chapter for more on eminent domain. 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Money damages may also be available under a claim that the taking violates a person's constitutional rights. Kotischadev.City of Rochester, Before bringing a takings clause claim in federal court, a property owner 319 F.3d 1038(319 F.3d 1038). must first attempt to obtain Just compensation through inverse condemnation procedures available in state courts. City of Monterey v.Del Monte The U.S. Supreme Court found that the city of Monterey, Calif., by imposing . Dunes at Monterey,527 U.S. more and more rigorous demands each of the five times it rejected 687, 119 S.Ct. 1624-(1999). applications to develop a parcel of land, committed a regulatory taking of the land without paying just compensation or providing an adequate post- deprivation remedy for the loss.The Court also determined it was appropriate for a jury to find that the city's denial of the final development plan was not reasonably related to legitimate public interests. The issue of when a jury is required in a takings case was raised in this case. Because of the extreme circumstances,the Supreme Court held that a jury was required. But it is clear that a jury is required only in cases where the facts and procedural posture are extreme. If the actions of the city in dealing with an applicant for a land use permit are so extreme that due process requires a jury to be appointed,the city should not expect the jury to be sympathetic to arguments that it acted reasonably. B. Zoning ordinances Los Angeles City Council v. Cities enact zoning ordinances based on their police powers that allow them Taxpayers for Vincent,466 U.S. to reasonably promote the public health, safety, morals, and welfare,which 789,104 S.Ct.2118(1984). may also include protecting the appearance of their community. Penn Cent.Transp.Co.v.City Generally, no taking occurs where the city's land use regulation is reasonably of New York 438 U.S.104,98 necessary to accomplish a legitimate government purpose. S Ct.2646(1978). 15-24 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES This chapter last revised 12/15/2004