Aastad v. Board of County Com'rs of Chippewa County, 38214
| Decision Date | 23 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38214,38214 |
| Citation | 260 Minn. 357,110 N.W.2d 19 |
| Parties | Bennie AASTAD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHIPPEWA COUNTY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Certiorari will lie to review the quasijudicial proceedings of municipal boards only where there is no right of appeal and no other adequate remedy.
R. M. Saltness, Dawson, for appellant.
Baker & Carlson, Granite Falls, for respondents.
The only issue on this appeal is a legal one which may be stated as follows: Will certiorari lie to review a county ditch proceedings of a county board where the ditch code itself (Minn.St. 106.631) expressly provides for review of such proceedings by appeal?
Petitioner, Bennie Aastad, in his statement of facts says that he owns a 40-acre tract of farmland and represents, as a class, others owning 31 forties, all situated on and assessed for the construction of County Ditch No. 60, which was constructed long prior to commencement of proceedings to establish County Ditch No. 68.
In proceedings to establish County Ditch No. 68, the viewers determined that the proposed construction would benefit the whole system of County Ditch No. 60 by increasing the efficiency of its outlet and therefore a lump-sum assessment was spread in individual assessments against the 32 forties involved in amounts varying from 60 cents to $184.50 by applying the claimed percentage of increase in efficiency against the assessments previously determined in County Ditch No. 60 proceedings. The county board affirmed the report of the viewers.
Petitioner contends that County Ditch No. 60 has an adequate outlet and has always functioned without outlet trouble; that construction of County Ditch No. 68 will restrict and impede rather than promote flow through the outlet of County Ditch No. 60; and that no possible benefit could accrue to County Ditch No. 60.
Petitioner, for himself and the others similarly situated, applied to the district court for certiorari, claiming that the actions of the viewers and the County Board of Chippewa County, wherein the land is located, were arbitrary, capricious, and unjust; that the statutory right of appeal does not afford the owners equal protection of the law; and that the right of appeal afforded them in fact operates to take their property for a public use without due process of law. Petitioner thus contends that, since appeals provided for under § 106.631 are inadequate under the special circumstances of this case, the proceedings ought to be and are subject to review by certiorari in the furtherance of justice and to promote the public interests. The district court denied the petition and petitioner is appealing from its order.
The principle is well established, and it is of course conceded, that there can be no justification for any proceeding which charges the land with an assessment that is greater than the benefits; to do so would be to appropriate without just compensation. See, In re County Ditch No. 67, 151 Minn. 292, 186 N.W. 711; In re Petition for Repair of County Ditch No. 1, 237 Minn. 358, 55 N.W.2d 308; Alden v. County of Todd, 140 Minn. 175, 167 N.W. 548.
True, the legislature, in adopting § 106.151, directs the viewers to find and report the benefits accruing to all lands and properties affected and benefited 'immediately' and 'directly' by the proposed ditch, but it also makes the further provision:
Petitioner, in his brief, acknowledges that the Minnesota drainage code (§ 106.631) affords appeal from actions of county boards such as those before us in the instant case. The statute begins with the clear statement that '(a)ny party aggrieved thereby, may appeal to the district court * * *.'
This court has long taken the position that certiorari will not lie where an adequate remedy is afforded, such as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zweber v. Credit River Twp.
...remedy in the ordinary course of the law,’ ” Nelson v. Schlener, 859 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Minn.2015) (quoting Aastad v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 260 Minn. 357, 359, 110 N.W.2d 19, 20 (1961) ); see also State v. Bd. of Pub. Works of City of Red Wing, 134 Minn. 204, 205, 158 N.W. 977, 977 (1916) ( “C......
-
Nelson v. Schlener
...remedy that “is not granted where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Aastad v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 260 Minn. 357, 359, 110 N.W.2d 19, 20 (1961). Therefore, if section 3.736 provides a specific process for review, certiorari review by the court of appeals is no......
-
Kunze v. WHITE BEAR LAKE POLICE, ETC.
...First Trust and Savings Bank v. U. S. Fidelity and Guarantee Co., 161 Minn. 88, 200 N.W. 848 (1924); Aastad v. Board of County Commissioners, 260 Minn. 357, 110 N.W.2d 19 (1961). Therefore, if the hearing before the White Bear Lake Police Civil Service Commission in February of 1980 was a p......