Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Hendrickson v. State

Hendrickson v. State

127 N.W.2d 165, 267 Minn. 436, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 658
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 20, 1964
Docket38,692
StatusPublished
Cited by78 cases

This text of 127 N.W.2d 165 (Hendrickson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hendrickson v. State, 127 N.W.2d 165, 267 Minn. 436, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 658 (Mich. 1964).

Opinion

Otis, Justice.

These proceedings were brought by Hendrickson and Brown as vendee and vendor of property abutting a “controlled access highway” *437 in the outskirts of the city of Rochester. The relief sought is to require the state to institute condemnation proceedings, or in the alternative to pay plaintiffs damages, for denying them access to the main traveled portion of the highway which is newly constructed on the previously established right-of-way adjoining plaintiffs’ property. From a summary judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.

The action was submitted on stipulated facts. Prior to the conversion to a controlled-access highway, plaintiffs’ property abutted U. S. Highway 63, a conventional two-lane roadway on a 200-foot right-of-way approximately 2 miles south of the city of Rochester. Traffic moved in both directions on a tarvia surface 28 feet in width, adjacent to which were gravel and dirt shoulders. Plaintiffs’ property was 85 feet west of the traveled portion of the highway and had access to it over two connecting roadways. The real estate in question had a frontage of 123 feet and an average depth of approximately 265 feet. It was used for a motel, constructed in the year 1953 and sold to the Hendricksons by the Browns in 1956. Thereafter the state designated the thoroughfare a controlled-access highway, and in 1958 began a reconstruction program which is the subject of this litigation.

The main traveled portion of the highway is now divided into two one-way surfaces, each 24 feet in width and separated by a 70-foot median strip. To the west is a 40-foot strip dividing the southbound lane from a new frontage or service road which is 24 feet in width, the west edge of which is now 40 feet from plaintiffs’ east property line and separated from it by another median strip. Plaintiffs have access to the service road over the same driveways they previously used, now reduced in length from 85 feet to 40 feet. There are temporary crossovers 100 feet north and 800 feet south of plaintiffs’ property, furnishing access between the service road and the main highway in both directions. The changes here under consideration are illustrated in plats we have included as part of the opinion.

The state has taken no additional property on plaintiffs’ side of the right-of-way in converting to a controlled-access highway but has lo-

*438

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2024
Ugorets v. City of Shorewood
D. Minnesota, 2022
Krsnak v. Brant Lake Sanitary Dist.
2018 SD 85 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2018)
State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Miller
2016 SD 88 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
Schliem v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation
2016 SD 90 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
Hall v. State Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Transportation
2011 S.D. 70 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation
760 N.W.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2009)
C AND R STACY, LLC v. County of Chisago
742 N.W.2d 447 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2007)
Bolen v. Glass
737 N.W.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2007)
Bailey v. United States
78 Fed. Cl. 239 (Federal Claims, 2007)
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metropolitan Council
684 N.W.2d 485 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2004)
Northern States Power Company v. MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
684 N.W.2d 499 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2004)
Dale Properties, LLC v. State
638 N.W.2d 763 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2002)
Dale Properties, LLC v. State
619 N.W.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2000)
Kick's Liquor Store, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis
587 N.W.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1998)
Grossman Investments v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey
571 N.W.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1997)
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp.
566 N.W.2d 331 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1997)
Finke v. State
521 N.W.2d 371 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1994)
County of Anoka v. Esmailzadeh
498 N.W.2d 58 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 N.W.2d 165, 267 Minn. 436, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrickson-v-state-minn-1964.