Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationMinnesota Supreme Court Hearing Eminent Domain Delegation Appeal
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
The Minnesota Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota. The case asks from where a redevelopment authority derives its eminent domain power. We digested the court of appeals' decision here.
Here's the summary of the issues presented from the Minnesota Courts site:
In 2001, the city established Cedar Grove as a tax increment financing district and adopted a redevelopment plan for the district. That redevelopment plan provided that before formal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the city would require a binding development agreement. In 2007, after negotiations to purchase the properties stalled, appellant Eagan Economic Development Authority took the properties by eminent domain. The district court granted the condemnation petitions; the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the economic development authority exceeded the scope of its condemnation authority by attempting to condemn the properties without a binding development agreement in place. Four issues are before the supreme court: (1) whether an economic development authority derives its eminent domain power from a city or from a statute; (2) whether the court of appeals erred by applying to the Eagan Economic Development Authority, Minn. Stat. § 469.094, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that an economic development authority may exercise "all of the powers that the governmental unit establishing the project could exercise with respect to the project"; (3) whether a city can modify the resolution establishing an economic development authority without complying with Minn. Stat. § 469.092 (2008), which requires written resolution after notice and a public hearing; and (4) whether the particular redevelopment plan for Cedar Grove limited the authority?s power of eminent domain with respect to the project. (Dakota County)
More to follow when the court issues an opinion.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on January 06, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Eminent Domain
University of Akron pays property owner $443,000 settlement.
The Plainfield School District
$10,500 settlement resolves eminent domain dispute.
Downtown Improvement
Springfield to pay more than $2.5 million settlement in eminent domain lawsuit.
Condo Eminent Domain
Maui pays $4.1 million settlement to property owner.
Landfill Eminent Domain
Surry County pays $800,000 settlement to purchase farm land for town dump.
Stadium Eminent Domain
City of Arlington agrees to $2 million Dallas Cowboys stadium settlement.

Is Minnesota Next to Stop Takings for Economic Development
Using Eminent Domain to Take Wind Rights
Eminent Domain in New Hampshire
Notice to Commercial Tenants of Eminent Domain Taking








