If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Minnesota Supreme Court
October 2, 2020

Table of Contents

County of Hennepin v. Laechelt

Real Estate & Property Law

Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Mar. 15, 1933 - Sep. 18, 2020

In honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justia has compiled a list of the opinions she authored.

For a list of cases argued before the Court as an advocate, see her page on Oyez.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Reflections on the Pending Supreme Court Challenge to the Affordable Care Act in California v. Texas: Part One in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

verdict post

In this first of a series of columns on the latest prominent challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone examine the stare decisis effects of the Supreme Court’s initial blockbuster decision involving the ACA. The authors demonstrate several, perhaps surprising, ways that the earlier decision should shape how the Court views the present challenge.

Read More

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions

County of Hennepin v. Laechelt

Docket: A19-0473

Opinion Date: September 30, 2020

Judge: G. Barry Anderson

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the jury's award of damages to Tamara Laechelt in this eminent domain action, holding that evidence of construction-related interference that arises after the date of taking is admissible to establish the value of the remainder property. A panel of commissions determined the amount of compensation Laechelt should be awarded for the County's acquisition of temporary and permanent easements from Laechelt. The County appealed the award and moved to exclude evidence of construction-related interference because the interference occurred after the date of the taking. The district court denied the motion and subsequently denied the County's motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying the County a new trial.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043