*1
case,
facts
includ
particular
of this
account
than
deposited into a trust
rather
(if
prompt)
ing respondent’s eventual
personal
account.
account or
business
fees,
prepaid
his refund of
disclosure
finding
Accordingly,
adopt the referee’s
we
estate,
$20,000
his age,
fees to
deposit
pre-
respondent’s
failure
reputation,
professional
personal
his
and
into
account
paid fees
a trust
constitutes
cooperation
director’s
and his
with the
of
serious,
which, in and
substantial violation
fice,
suspension adequately
that a
indicate
itself,
significant
“deserving of
disci-
responsibility to
discharges this court’s
pline.”
“guard
and
justice
the administration of
issue,
primary
We turn now
courts,
and,
profession
protect
legal
discipline considering the
appropriate
else,
public.”
In re
above all
Heffer
respon
as well as
trust account violation
nan,
(Minn.1984).
N.W.2d
We
Lar
promptly
failure
disclose
dent’s
handling
referee
commend the
for his
receipt
prepaid
fees.
heirs his
son’s
matter,
this difficult
and we do not dismiss
respondent
in
The referee concluded
lightly.
his
recommendation
disbarment
tentionally
prepaid
misappropriated the
responsibility
The final
disbarment, com
fees and recommended
discipline
solely
this
appropriate
rests
with
difficulty
menting upon the
he faced
however,
Franke,
court,
see In re
arriving at
this recommendation because
(Minn.1984),
it is
N.W.2d
and
this
nature of the evidence
the circumstantial
suspension
ap-
court’s determination that
respondent.
ultimately
He
was
against
Accordingly,
propriate in this
instance.
persuaded to
disbarment
recommend
this
ordered
court:
“implausibilities
what he
described
respondent
suspended
1.
That
respondent’s story.”
practice
of law the State Minneso-
support
In
the referee’s
disbarment
May
ta until
1993.
recommendation,
director of
Office
Respondent
pay
2.
reasonable
shall
Lawyers
Responsibility
Professional
pursuant to Rule
costs and disbursements
disciplinary
several
decisions
this
cites
Respon-
Lawyers
Rules on
Professional
attorney’s
involving an
misuse of an
sibility.
assets, among
elderly
them In re
client’s
Larsen,
(Minn.1990),
tion other acts of
misconduct. argument disbarment, against In his re- Minnesota, by Hubert H. STATE contrast, grav- spondent, understates HUMPHREY, III, Appellant, Respondent ity of his misconduct. admit- tedly deposit prepaid failed to fees in a STROM, al., Mildred L. Donald et O. account, using trust the monies instead al., Sponsel, et 40: Parcel note, personal his a violation
pay down own Plaza, Partnership, Respon- a Limited may support itself an order for a which dents. suspension. Lochow, 469 lengthy See addition, "respondent 98. C4-91-1941, Nos. C7-91-1870. $20,000 in fees prepaid concealed least Supreme Court of Minnesota. July from the time of Larson’s death Dec. inventory the proposed until he filed the following mitigating cir- March. Absent
cumstances, support such misconduct could
an order disbarment. *3 III, Gen., Atty. Humphrey, H.
Hubert Atty. Gen., Sherry Enzler, Sp. A. Asst. Gen., Paul, Mueting, St. Atty. Asst. Donald appellant. Gunn, Gunn, Bradley Min- Richard J. J. respondent. neapolis, for Paul, Heyl, amicus curiae Carla St. League of Minnesota Cities. WAHL, Justice. appeal questions in this ask to determine con-
us
whether
and loss of
struction-related interferences
visibility may be
into account
taken
the market value
extent
affect
appeals
compensation
petitioned
court
just
state
proceeding.
discretionary
eminent domain
We an-
review of the district
in an
questions
addition,
the affirmative.
swer both
In
the district
court’s order.
concerning
questions
certified two
1986, the
State Minnesota
October
admissibility of evidence of
construc-
pursu-
began
proceedings
domain
eminent
damages
tion-related
involv-
to ac-
ant Minn.Stat.
117.042
important
necessary for
construc-
quire property
103.3(h).
Minn.R.Civ.App.P.
doubtful under
and conversion
to a
tion
appeals
ap-
The court of
consolidated the
highway, 1-394. The
federal
interstate
peals
granted discretionary
review.
condemnation included a
*4
granted
pur-
This Court
accelerated review
by respondent
an office site owned
Minn.R.Civ.App.P.
suant to
118.
Plaza,
Partnership
Woodbridge
a Limited
(“Woodbridge”),
the
located on
south side Woodbridge is the fee owner of what
in
old
12 Minnetonka.
originally
abutting
a
was
3.75 acre tract
granted
the court
On December
frontage
the
road that was
of the old
13,700square
petition
acquire
to
the state’s
right-of-way.
Highway 12
The area is
Woodbridge’s property in fee and
feet of
zoned for commercial or
use and
business
4,371
four-year temporary
a
square feet as
improved by three-story,
tract
well-
is
and ordered the tak-
construction easement
maintained, quality
building.
office
The
vesting of
in the state on
ing and the
title
1981-1982,
building
in
is
sound
was built
All
February
of the
ac-
1987.
36,035
construction,
square
and contains
Woodbridge
for con-
quired from
was used
rentable area. The
feet
net
frontage
the appurtenant
road
struction
landscaped
improved with
attractively
portion of
system. Construction of this
space asphalt parking
lot.
project began April
in
1987 and was com-
major
Highway 12 is one of the
Old
July
pleted in
1990.
connecting
Minneapolis
routes
downtown
Court-appointed commissioners filed an
being
It is
con-
western suburbs.
pre-
damages,
award of
based on evidence
highway des-
verted into a “limited access”
$707,-
hearings, in
amount of
sented at
(1-394).
full
ignated as
The
Interstate-394
partial taking.
873 for the
Of this amount
project
the reconstruction of elev-
involves
$114,688
taken, $593,185
is for the land
miles
and the reconstruction
en
parties
damage
for
to the remainder. Both
and south
of both
north
and relocation
appealed the
to the district court for
award
of the
frontage
The construction
roads.
jury
trial. The state claims
award
frontage
occur-
roads are
highway and
do
and that
excessive
jointly funded
ring simultaneously and are
$227,000. Woodbridge
exceed
claims the
The
highway funding.
federal-state
damages exceed
inadequate,
award is
to be
plan
roads
now calls
million.
$3
government
turned over
local units
parties
par-
Prior
trial
both
moved
con-
operation and maintenance when
summary
expedited
judgment
tial
to obtain
completed in
June 1993.
struction
judicial review of whether construction-re-
problems visited
The construction-related
loss
lated interferences and
typical
upon Woodbridge property
may be taken into account
the extent
experienced by other
problems being
of the
proper-
the market
of the
affect
value
along the
properties located
commercial
ty
determining just compensation.
in
The
instance,
For
length of the reconstruction.
granted Woodbridge’s motion
district court
enter-
many of the commercial
jury to
access to
to allow the
consider evidence
seriously dis-
prises
the area
construction-related interferences and
both
of the access to the
separate
rupted. The location
visibility,
items of
changed many times
damage,
they may
bear
but to the extent
The
during
period of construction.
after
on the market value
and inconvenient
was often circuitous
taking.
route
ac-
In a
condemnation
completely eliminat-
although it was never
tion,
visibility to the
is evidence of loss of
ed.
traveling
redesigned highway
on a
period, the occu-
During the construction
admissible,
item of
not as
building dropped dramat-
pancy level of the
consid-
damages, but as a factor
be
in 1988.
in 1987 to
ically, from
56.7%
91.6%
finder of fact
ered
occupancy rate remains
low—65%
in market
the diminution
dropped—
rental rate also
1990. The net
remaining
per square foot
from $10.59
rental
in 1988. The
per square foot
$7.90
questions
raise
per square foot.
$4.48
rate in 1990 was
the district
issue of the extent to which
pre-trial appeal, we
of this
purpose
For the
con
evidence that
limit
inter-
the construction-related
assume that
determining the fair
jury
sidered
temporary reduction
caused a
ferences
When a tak
value of a remainder.
market
rental income.
occurs,
private property
the state
ing of
addition,
permanently
project has
constitutions
the state and the federal
both
visibility of much of
impaired
the view
paid.1
just compensation be
require that
*5
remaining property. Before construc-
1,
provides: “Private
Minn. Cons. art.
13§
tion, Woodbridge property and its land-
taken, destroyed or
property shall not be
pass-
fully
scaped grounds were
visible
just com
damaged
public
for
use without
12.
Highway
on old
Old
motorists
therefor,
paid
first
or secured.”
pensation
(1-394)
lowered
Highway 12
has now been
language
language
than the
This
is broader
property
in front of the
two to six feet
federal constitution:
shall
of the
“[N]or
frontage road has been
while the south
use,
for
private property be taken
a
twenty-one
feet. As
elevated nine
Const,
compensation.” U.S.
just
without
result,
property
pass-
visibility
addition,
117.-
In
Minn.Stat.
amend. V.
§
has been substan-
ing motorists on 1-394
025,
“taking and all
subd. 1
defines
However, visibility
tially
reduced.
import” to in
phrases of like
words and
has not
af-
the south
road
been
interference,
right
“every
under the
clude
pre-trial
purpose of this
fected. For the
domain,
possession,
eminent
with the
of
parties agree and we as-
appeal only, the
private property.”
enjoyment, or value of
caused
sume that
reduction
Thus,
intent of Minnesota law is
the clear
generated
a reduction in the income stream
fully compensate its citizens for losses
remaining property, that
the use of the
property rights incurred because
related to
occupancy
in lower
rates
reflected
actions.2
of state
and rental income.
Minnesota has followed
“be
questions
the dis-
two
rule to determine the mea
fore and after”
trict court are these:
partial tak
just compensation
for a
sure
partial taking
condemnation ac-
a
rule,
According
the measure of
ing.
to this
tion,
of construction-related
is evidence
the fair
damages is the difference between
admissible,
sepa-
not as a
interferences
proper
piece
the entire
market value of
damages, but as a factor
rate item of
ty immediately before the
by the finder of fact
be considered
of the remainder of
fair market value
in market
the diminution
taking.3
Casey,
v.
property after the
State
remaining property?
value of the
view,
compensable property
light,
compensation”
per-
or other
must be "a full and
1. "Just
rights.”
equivalent
property taken.” Monon-
fect
States,
gahela Navigation
148 U.S.
Co. v. United
Jury
accu-
Instruction Guide 589
3.Minnesota
326,
622, 626,
312,
S.Ct.
is no disallowing recovery, ques since We answer the first certified purchaser might pay if partial-taking less he knew such tion in the affirmative: injuries action, were Nichols, to be inflicted.” su condemnation evidence of construc pra, admissible, 14.08. Accord Brakken v. Min tion-related interferences is neapolis Co., & separate damages, St. Louis R. as a of item but as 11 N.W. (temporary factor to be considered the finder of fact jurisdictions Most that have considered in determining diminution market in question of whether evidence of loss of remaining property. roadway visibility from a is admissi- question asks The second of ble to show a diminution market value action, whether, partial-condemnation in a that it in cer- have concluded is admissible visibility loss of of reasoning The find tain instances. we highway is ad- traveling redesigned aon the Alaska Su- persuasive most that of missible, of not as a item 8,960 preme Square Dept, Court Feet v. by the considered as a factor to be (Alaska 1991). Transp., P.2d of diminution finder of fact that, although reasoned There remaining property. market value right owner “has no an unob- stipulated agree, parties Both line of vision to his from structed facts, visibility subject prop- of property, off of his an anywhere absent passing on the main trav- erty motorists sort, ownership easement some [the] lanes T.H. eled east and west bound abutting gives on a road the owner the land significantly reduced right visibility adjoin- 12/1-894 to control the of all 1-394, though visi- the construction of with land further off the road.” Id. at 846. Therefore, bility visibility road has south when loss of is caused parties by changes parcel on significantly affected. Both made taken been state, pay sum- the state must extra for this agree, purposes for the asset. important commercial Id. mary only, that the reduction of judgment position “the is that court concluded best visibility from the main-traveled lanes visibility compensable in an emi- loss of T.H. has east and bound 12/1-394 west proceeding the dimin- nent domain where in the resulted in a reduction income changes on the visibility ished results from generated use the remain- stream property taken from the landowner.” Id. ing property which be reflected at 848. occupancy rates and rental income subject property. compatible this rule most We consider provision of our compensation question of whether loss Therefore, although the constitution. state compensable in an eminent is ever abutting owner proceeding in Minnesota is issue domain out, points no com- have may, as state impression. first The value of com pensable property right to the continuous its dependant mercial on past prop- of traffic its and sustained flow visibility: location and sometimes its State, 502- erty, Recke v. view, as access to beach “Items such where, (1974), *8 noise, from etc. are property, freedom here, the from by taken state the willing unquestionably matters which a raise the abutting was used to the owner open market consider in the would buyer feet frontage road 21 and obstruct south determining pay he price would remaining prop- visibility from 1-394 to the property.
any given piece of real Con- visibility may of of that loss erty, evidence advantages not cededly such absolute determining account when be taken into rights, extent the reason remaining to the fair market value of expectation of their continuance property. able placed by destroyed the construction question second certified answer the We taken, part suffers
upon owner affirmative, par- as In a modified. damages compensation must for which action, ex- to the tial-taking condemnation paid.” tent America, Cal.App.3d redesigned highway at results traveling on a Volunteers of from (quoting changes in the taken Cal.Rptr. Pierpont at 431 from owner, loss is admissi- Inn, of that California, 70 74 the Cal.2d Inc. damages, but ble, item of 521, 530, not as Cal.Rptr. 449 P.2d by finder factor to be considered (1969)). always diminution in taken not mean the of fact in does owner remaining any the remainder suffers more or differ value of the market adjoining ent inconveniences than his questions Certified answered. neighbors any part not had who have Indeed, their in City land taken. Crook SIMONETT, part (dissenting Justice ston, we said that the remainder owner concurring part). and ordinarily consequential recover cannot question the first “no” I would answer ** * damages “caused the taker’s use and, “yes,” question and the second there- property acquired adjoining land fore, part. respectfully dissent in though owners even his and all taking the condemnation In a taken from others is used to further the (1) damages into award breaks down Minn, Id., project.” same damages part taken and severance N.W.2d at 913.1 remaining. damages part to the Severance especially Two our cases are instruc- (a) remaining part occur because: can consequential damages. tive on the test for smaller, tract; (b) and is a less usable Erickson, City supra, Crookston v. adversely part remaining is affected be- above, mentioned land was taken from way cause of the in which the land taken three owners for the construction of a sew- put from the owner and others is to use age disposal plant. Parcel A was taken in type the taker. This second of severance entirety its need concern us. With damages “consequential” also called respect to Parcels B both and C there was damages. partial taking. About 6 acres were taken Consequential damages include such ad- part from Parcel B’s 15 acres to be used as consequences as decreased verse accessibil- sewage disposal site but with loss, fumes, noise, ity, blight aesthetic or part structures to be built on the taken. and traffic Not all inconveniences. adverse C, city strip On Parcel took a 33-foot consequences translate into dam- severance underground for its sewer line. This court ages. Some interferences the owner’s held that the owner of the Parcel B remain- enjoyment remaining use and tract might consequential der recover severance are to be com- borne owner because decrease market value public generally mon to the proximity caused its undesirable living progressive cost of in “a vibrant and sewage disposal plant. The court also society.” Metropolitan Alevizos v. Air- held, however, that the owner of the Parcel Comm’n, 471, 486, ports 298 Minn. 216 C remainder could not recover on a similar dividing line consequential test, damages. claim of easy is not always to determine. said, we was whether the taken consti- taken, When no conse integral inseparable part tutes “an of a quential damages are not un recoverable single to which the use land taken and consequential injury peculiar less the Id., adjoining put.” other land the adjoining property. City Crookston (citing N.W.2d at 914 Andrews v. Erickson, Cox, 587, 590). 129 Conn. 29 A.2d necessarily It does We said the factfinder could find Parcel B *9 follow, however, partial but, law, if there is that a met the test as a matter of that taking consequences all adverse Implicit are com- the Parcel C remainder did not. pensable. part ruling any Because of a tract has been this a determination was that Or, otherwise, appear position ly. 1. “It would that the taken stated a landowner should consequential damages courts allow damages [to whenev- consequential not be awarded because partial taking] er there is a small, taken, does not withstand portion, however his land was arbitrary examination and breaks down into an loss, neighbor, suffering where his the same theory application. thesis both in and in Theo- portion receives none because no of his land * * * retically adjacent landowner who suf- Annotation, actually was taken." Eminent Do- by way consequential damages fered loss 488, Land, Adjoining main—Use 59 A.L.R.3d regard should be reimbursed without to wheth- (1974) (citations omitted). 492-93 sovereign er the took land him direct-
563
This
sufficiently
constitutional
sense.
determination
di-
was not
injury to Parcel C
facts;
relies,
course,
but where undis-
and substantial.
rect
puted
themselves become
of the
facts
State, 284
is Thomsen v.
The second case
right as ap-
contours of the constitutional
468,
In
erty.
there
Moreover, although these interferences
significance of a
important.
that
impact
impact, that
may have a substantial
establish,
taking
then,
is how
temporary.
question,
cannot,
the kind of
non-taking
way that a
continue
activities
long must construction
remainder
proximity
close
between
particulars before
become
and what
im-
operation
and the
tract
diminution?
to market
relevant
necessary to
provement which is
establish
us,
years
before
where
3¥2
Even
the case
is, indeed, direct,
any injury
substan-
time, it is difficult
period of
is a substantial
peculiar.
tial and
into the before-and-after
fit this factor
activity
af-
occurs
The construction
foregoing
rule.
test
al-
I would treat
willing buyer at
taking.
While
conse-
ter
lowing
of adverse
consideration
to discount
would wish
the time of
question of
for the trial
quences as a
law
State,
occupancy
price for
reduced
selling
Hendrickson
court.
Cf
during construction
building
445-46,
of the office
167 n.
occur,
likely counter
yet
the seller would
(1964) (trial
ordinarily should de-
*10
expected
value
enhanced
if
been
the
there has
cide “as a matter
law”
com-
highway
new
was
after
an
damage).
there has been
un-
Whether
done,
net re-
pleted. Yet if this were
fair, direct, substantial,
injury
peculiar
and runs
speculative
both becomes
damage
been
sult
if there has
determines
abutting prop
looking out from the
general
of of view
rule that
benefits
counter to the
argues
highway. The
erty to the
state
are not to be considered.
highway
change
grade is a
damages for
that
compensa-
in the test for
Finally, implicit
claim,
tak
law
not a constitutional
common
the concern
consequential
is
ble
having in
the some
ing, apparently
mind
acqui-
of land
for a reasonable containment
language in cases such as
equivocal
what
improvements. To
costs for
sition
City
Electric Short Line Terminal Co.
reflect
awards which
allow condemnation
Minneapolis, 242 Minn.
in the market value
temporary fluctuations
parties
cases from
Both
cite
in-
tract for construction
of the remainder
posi
jurisdictions
support
other
of their
unduly inflates
distorts and
conveniences
tions.
If relief to
parameters.
domain
eminent
incon-
for construction-related
landowners
implied
there is an
easement of
Whether
allowed, it should be
veniences is to be
property,
abutting
landowner’s
view to
Compare
by separate legislation.
done
interesting question.
from,
is an
as well
Real
Relocation Assistance and
Uniform
But,
on
happens
as sometimes
a case
Act, 42
Acquisitions Policies
Property
say question
interesting does
appeal, to
is
117.52
seq.
4601 et
and Minn.Stat.
U.S.C.
mean it
answered. This case
has
(1990)(relocation
paid
though
expense
even
analyzed
properly
is more
as a case of
damage cognizable under eminent
not a
context,
consequential damages.
In this
domain).
question is not whether there has been
interest,
appur-
of a
II.
view,
tenant easement of
but whether
brings
This
me to the second
(both
state’s use of the land taken
that
construction,
question. Prior to
new
others)
Woodbridge and of
has caused an
appears
Woodbridge property,
that the
unfair, direct,
peculiar inju-
substantial
road,
pretty
frontage
12 were
ry Woodbridge’s remainder real estate.
grade. The new
much all on the same
agree
majority’s opinion
I
that it
with the
frontage
road
construction includes new
has.
Woodbridge,
partly
from
on the land taken
building
appears visibility of the office
It
grade
to 21 feet.
with the
raised from 9
highway
important
from the
is an
market-
addition,
grade
Highway 12 in
of old
Woodbridge remainder
able attribute of the
Woodbridge
front of
has been lowered
tract,
parties agree
purpose
and the
result,
some 2 to 6 feet. As a
east- and
signif-
appeal
visibility
of this
Highway I-
west-bound motorists on new
icantly reduced.
It can also be said
grade
394 are some 11 to 27 feet below the
peculiarly injures this interference
building.
they pass
for the office
As
unfairly, in
property and does so
the sense
site,
Woodbridge
their view of the office
Woodbridge
is asked to shoulder
burden
building
significantly reduced. This is a
others do not.
permanent interference.
frontage
The
road rises 9
reason the new
Woodbridge claims it has an easement of
Woodbridge prop-
21 feet in front of
highway,
does
view to be seen from the
erty
point
is because the road at this
must
not claim interference with this view is
Parkway
join
nearby
rise to
Shelard
damages, only a factor to
item of
This, me,
significant.
overpass.
be considered in
diminution
similarly raised in
new
road is not
tract.
remainder
abutting the
change
front of all other
holding
also cites our cases
that a
grade
existing
compen-
Thus the raised road embankment
of an
road.
See,
Woodbridge property. This
e.g.,
City
peculiar
sable.
Sallden v.
Little
Falls,
circumstance,
unique
coupled with the fact
565 321, Inc., 14, 18, 145 determining 275 Minn. N.W.2d 326 in severance to be considered (1966) added). However, not (emphasis all damages. appro- that affect market value are factors lowering I am so sure that not See, priate to v. consider. Unit- Danforth 12, only which affects grade of States, 231, 308 U.S. 60 S.Ct. ed right-of-way of the part the center 237, (1939). 84 240 Admission of L.Ed. should, itself, system, by a highway be new non-compensable can evidence bearing visibility as affect- factor give rise an inference that those claims to ing the market value of the See, compensable. Minneapolis-St. are times, visibility tract. At must remainder Sanitary Fitzpatrick, v. 201 Paul Dist. improvements. to yield proper street Cf 394, 277 400 Minn. N.W. Braun, 4, 8 v. 314 N.W.2d Haeussler (overturned by Metropolitan v. Alevizos (Minn.1981). case, however, In this Comm’n, 352, Airports 317 N.W.2d 358 raising of lowering highway and the (AlevizosII), (Minn.1982) to the extent that (together frontage road retain- prices comparable properties sale are installed) “integral combine as an walls admissible). now highway im- inseparable” part place to provement which takes next Wood- every prop- Not decrease in the bridge, that all these features so erty by public improvements caused com- an interference contrib- be considered pensable; damage prop- must be to consequential uting visibility as a to loss of erty City itself. v. Minne- McCarthy damage. 431, 759, 427, Minn. 281 N.W. apolis, 203 damaged must be 761 COYNE, in (dissenting Justice aesthetically. in substance rather than Id. concurring part). in Here, grade change has the road altered ability of the motorists to see the join I dissent in Justice Simonett's Woodbridge building landscaped part. and concurrence aesthetic, grounds, which is an not substan- TOMLJANOVICH, (dissenting). Justice change in value. tive join I as Justice Simonett’s dissent to roadway, a it The State relocate as whether, question, par- first a certified here, being liable for conse- “without did action, taking condemnation tial sustained ad- quential economic losses” of construction related interferences State, v. jacent property owners. Recke admissible, separate a item of dam- as 786, 215 N.W.2d ages, a factor be considered but as has no (Minn.1974). owner determining the dimi- the finder of fact Id. at right the traffic flow. vested remaining in market value of the nution 1, citing at n. Mattson n. property. Colon, v. right is no Since there However, no I would also answer past the owner’s of traffic continued flow whether, in par- question, second property, follows that there action, business the evi- tial condemnation traveling right to be viewed dence loss of Minn, Recke, See, public. redesigned highway is ad- traveling on a at 788. missible, as item of dam- N.W.2d to be considered ages, but as factor held that Minnesota has never determining the dimi- the finder of fact seen, as distin- right be has a owner remaining nution in market value per- view” the “easement of guished from Therefore, I respectfully dis- property. from the mitting an outward owner view sent. Minne- McCarthy City property. 430-31, N.W. at awards, apolis, condemnation * * * object that a considered, “cannot An owner may properly fact by the signs or shop windows view of his bears on the market long legitimately as it (Citation omitted). off.” cut Id. so State Gannons value of *12 synony- right to seen were Even if the be (Tem view, implied right to a it is
mous with E. Kenneth Trol WILSON entitlement to Relator, right but an Corporation), absolute by a proper a “view that obstructed [is] v. Braun, street use.” Haeussler REVENUE, OF COMMISSIONER added). (Minn.1981)(emphasis Respondent. ability traveling Although No. C4-92-203. Woodbridge altered to see construction, change grade there level Supreme of Minnesota. Court trunk dispute is no use of Dec. is a 12 as to limited access 394 converted Therefore, even if an proper street use.
adjacent property did have an entitlement seen, general yield must
to be
public’s right improved on an travel so,
street. 7-8. If this were not Id. at
every property owner behind sound barri-
er a cause action recover would have change in market value of possible longer
their since could roadway. Perhaps
see or from the be seen operator junkyard required who
even screening provide would have cause of specifically rejects this
action. Haeussler
notion. compensat- a right has to be However, partial taking.
ed for there right
is no inherent to be seen compensable,
that is and therefore
of that loss should not be admissible.
Woodbridge should not a better com-
plaining position over the inconvenience sight lines than other owners
surrounding highway who have not had See, Kentucky Ray, taken. (Ky.Ct.App.1965). S.W.2d revolutionary majority decision is a change
and dramatic law. condemnation taxpayers
It results a burden on the
is unfair and unwise.
I dissent. Mulligan, Mulligan Bjornnes,
John M. & Minneapolis, for relator. Gen., III, Atty. Humphrey, H.
Hubert Greller, Gen., Sp. Atty. R. Asst. St. Barry Paul, respondent.