State by Mondale v. Ohman
| Decision Date | 22 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 38505,38505 |
| Citation | 116 N.W.2d 101,263 Minn. 115 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota by Walter F. MONDALE, its Attorney General, Respondent, v. Gudrun OHMAN, et al., Respondents-below, Bernard M. Harroun, Dolores L. Harroun, Hugh L. Brenner and Rosemary Brenner, Relators. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under Minn.St. 161.20 legislature has vested commissioner of highways with authority to designate and acquire through eminent domain lands needed for trunk highway purposes; in so doing he acts for state in its sovereign capacity and his authority for purposes described includes his right to take access to a trunk highway from adjacent landowners in interest of safety and convenience.
2. Where evidence is adequate to support finding that taking for highway purposes by commissioner was not arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory, court will not interfere therewith.
3. Where evidence disclosed that taking of easement and fee of small parcel of relators' property was reasonably necessary for purposes of slope and visibility for drivers leaving highway to enter intersecting highway; and that taking of access from a part of relators' land adjacent to highway was to lessen traffic hazards, Held such evidence sufficient to uphold finding that such taking was not arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory and that hence trial court's order overruling relators' objections to taking and upholding commissioner therein should be affirmed.
Bernard M. Harroun, Glen Lake, for relators.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Rolf Slen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Leo Cavanaugh, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Proceedings designated Condemnation No. 179 for condemnation and acquisition for highway purposes of certain interests in relators' lands designated Parcel 206A in section 35, township 117, range 22 west, Hennepin County. At the district court hearing on the petition May 26, 1961, relators interposed objections on the ground that the proposed taking was not necessary for highway purposes and was invalid because arbitrary, discriminatory, and capricious. On June 9, 1961, the district court made an order overruling relators' objections and granting the petition. By certiorari here relators seek reversal of this order on the same ground.
Condemnation No. 179 relates to a proposed extension of 62nd Street (Minneapolis) to the west, in part adjacent to the entire south boundary of relators' property, a distance of 458 feet. Relators' interests which the state seeks to acquire consist of .07 of an acre in fee, and an easement in .14 of an acre until December 1964, both for purposes of slope and visibility. The state also is taking relators' access to 62nd Street for a distance of 265 feet east from the southwest corner of their land to lessen traffic hazards; and leaving access to 62nd Street from the remaining 193 feet of the south line of their property.
In a prior proceeding with reference to the proposed extension of 62nd Street, designated Condemnation No. 35, the state acquired the right-of-way therefor lying adjacent to the south boundary of relators' land. In such proceedings the state provided for a frontage road leading onto 62nd Street from the south, directly opposite a portion of relators' property on the north, to give access to landowners to the south of 62nd Street. This frontage road lies entirely within the boundaries of the right-of-way acquired by the state in Condemnation No. 35. Vehicles entering 62nd Street therefrom may turn either to the left or right.
The east travel lane of Interstate Freeway Route No. 393, extending north and south in this area, will pass over 62nd Street when completed some 490 feet to the west of the frontage road described. The east line of the right-of-way of Interstate Freeway Route No. 393 is some 365 feet from the west line of relators' premises. Four ramps extending from 62nd Street to the freeway are to be constructed to permit traffic interchange between 62nd Street and the freeway.
It is the state's contention that access to 62nd Street from the south frontage road described will not create objectionable traffic hazards, but that if additional access were permitted from relators' land opposite the frontage road, or from any point within the west 265 feet of relators' land, the traffic hazards will be greatly increased by reason of the traffic interchange over the ramps described. It is relators' contention that access should be permitted from their property to the same extent that it is authorized to landowners from the south over the frontage road and that the state's refusal to grant such access is arbitrary and discriminatory, so that the order denying it should be reversed. The state also contends that the part of relators' lands taken for slope are essential for visibility for persons using the east ramp leading north from 62nd Street onto the freeway; and that the only reason it had not been acquired in the prior proceeding was because it had been overlooked.
At the hearing the evidence consisted of the usual documents essential in condemnation proceedings and the testimony of Richard J. Stjernstrom, an engineer from the office of the commissioner of highways. He testified that he had participated in the condemnation proceedings relating to 62nd Street; that he had viewed the relators' property and walked over it several times; that at the point where the ramp will lead from 62nd Street north to the freeway relators' land rises abruptly so that in order to construct this (ramp) 'we do run into a cut, so to speak,' requiring a 'back-slope' under the natural ground to eliminate an abrupt wall; and that both the part taken in fee and the slope easement are required for this purpose.
With reference to access to be taken from relators, he testified that this involved only 265 feet from the west line of relators' land and left relators with access over the remaining 193 feet of the southern boundary of their land; that access of the frontage road from the south was entirely within the state's right-of-way and was intended to link the territory south with 62nd Street and thence out to Baker Road and on to the village of Minnetonka; that access was taken from relators' land to prevent too much traffic coming onto 62nd Street in the near vicinity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Mondale v. Gannons Inc.
...N.W. 908; Housing and Redevelopment Authority, etc. v. Mpls. Metropolitan Co., 259 Minn. 1, 104 N.W.2d 864; State, by Mondale, v. Ohman, 263 Minn. 115, 116 N.W.2d 101. The issue in the case at bar was the compensability of the Highway Department's reconstruction of Highway No. 5 as it affec......
-
Kelmar Corp. v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist., Hennepin County, 39468
...to say what land is necessary to the establishment and maintenance of the highway system. We said in State, by Mondale, v. Ohman,263 Minn. 115, 119, 116 N.W.2d 101, 104: '* * * It is well settled * * * that the commissioner of highways has been vested by the legislature with the authority t......
-
Hennepin County v. Mikulay
...fraudulent, or contrary to law. City of Austin v. Wright, 262 Minn. 301, 114 N.W.2d 584 (1962). In State, by Mondale, v. Ohman, 263 Minn. 115, 120, 116 N.W.2d 101, 104 (1962), we said: 'Whether a taking by the commissioner of highways is arbitrary or discriminatory ordinarily presents a que......
-
State by Head v. Christopher, 41355
...137, 141, 130 N.W.2d 228, 231, citing State, by Hilton, v. Voll, 155 Minn. 72, 75, 192 N.W. 188, 189. In State, by Mondale, v. Ohman, 263 Minn. 115, 119, 116 N.W.2d 101, 104, we 'Several principles well established and applicable in condemnation proceedings must govern determination of the ......