State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation v. Richard R. Compart, ...
Case Details
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Excerpt
Following a condemnation proceeding, respondent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) took title to approximately 12 acres of land appellants (the 1 Comparts) previously owned. The district court appointed three commissioners who held a hearing to determine damages. The Comparts hired legal counsel and several experts to represent them at the hearing. Because the commissioners' final damages determination was more than 40% greater than MnDOT's last written offer prior to filing the condemnation petition, the Comparts moved the district court for "reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, appraisal fees, expert fees, and other related costs." See Minn. Stat. § 117.031(a) (2022). The district court granted the Comparts' motion in part, but did not award the full amount of fees, costs, and expenses requested. The Comparts appeal, arguing the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of appropriate fees, costs, and expenses. Because the district court abused its discretion when it misapplied the law as it relates to fees, costs, and expenses, we reverse and remand.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's behavior constituted harassment, we affirm.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.