Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD

200 N.W.2d 297, 294 Minn. 513, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1449

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 11, 1972

Docket43252

StatusPublished

This text of 200 N.W.2d 297 (Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD) 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

Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD, 200 N.W.2d 297, 294 Minn. 513, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1449 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-petitioner filed with the district court a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus requesting that the State of Minnesota be required to condemn certain property. Petitioner alleged that certain apartment buildings owned by it had been damaged as a result of shocks caused by pile driving in the construction of a highway near petitioner’s property. A peremptory writ of mandamus was granted and the state appeals, contending (1) that pursuant to Rule 14, Rules of Civil Procedure, it was proper for the state to implead certain third parties in the mandamus proceeding, and (2) that the trial court erred in dismissing certain portions of the third-party complaint.

This is the third appeal involving the claims of petitioner against both the state and the contractors involved in constructing the highway. In Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. State, by Head, 294 Minn. 510, 200 N. W. 2d 295 (1972), we held that petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the state to proceed with inverse condemnation. The decision in that case renders moot the issues in this case, and this appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-petitioner filed with the district court a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus requesting that the State of Minnesota be required to condemn certain property. Petitioner alleged that certain apartment buildings owned by it had been damaged as a result of shocks caused by pile driving in the construction of a highway near petitioner’s property. A peremptory writ of mandamus was granted and the state appeals, contending (1) that pursuant to Rule 14, Rules of Civil Procedure, it was proper for the state to implead certain third parties in the mandamus proceeding, and (2) that the trial court erred in dismissing certain portions of the third-party complaint.

This is the third appeal involving the claims of petitioner against both the state and the contractors involved in constructing the highway. In Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. State, by Head, 294 Minn. 510, 200 N. W. 2d 295 (1972), we held that petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the state to proceed with inverse condemnation. The decision in that case renders moot the issues in this case, and this appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.W.2d 297, 294 Minn. 513, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowry-hill-properties-inc-v-state-by-head-minn-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack