12-10-1979 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OB tAKe A^cc^ 18 NORTH WESTKRN REl>ORTER. 2d BERin NOV 1979 cm lE ORONQ id any interference with this flow to their iilury it a wroiif for which they are en* tiled to an appropriate remedy.^ To pre« vw such a wronf, injunction is an ap- pr^riate remedy.” Morrill v. Saint An- tho» Falls Water-Power Co., 26 Minn. 2221229. 2 N.W. 842, 847, 37 Am.Rep. 399; irn ▼. People’s Ice Co., 82 Minn. 43, ^ 641, 51 L.R.A. 829, 83 Am.St.Rep. id Schaefer v. Marthaler, 34 Minn. N.W. 726. 57 Am.Rep. 73, supra. Youn|ltown*s plan contemplates the tak- in|[ of property without just compensation and wimout condemnation proceedini^s as prescrilw by the lease and statute. This is a violtion of plaintiffs* private rights which thl* will suffer not in common with the puUiwenerally hut as a damage sole ly to theiw^A private property. Younfstwn objects that plaintiffs* dam age, if any,was not been shown to be ir reparable. A cases of this nature, the rule has been momhed as expressed in Bilsbor* row V. PiercA 101 Minn. 271, 276, 112 N. W. 274, 276, Vhich involved damage re- suiting from alrainage project: ^ Thlrelaxaticn of the rule re quiring a prima%acie case of irreparable damage as a condition of granting an in junction in such a\ue as this, and a modi fication of the enfVced standard of such damage obvious im such decisions gen erally, has been ex^’^ssly recognised by this court.** In Whittaker v. SVngvick, 100 Minn. 386, 392. Ill N.W. X. 297. 10 L.R.A., N.S., 921, 117 Am.StR% 703, 10 Ann^Cas. 528, it was stated: **were has been a material modification in^ch cases of the requiremenu that the inj» should .be ir reparable and the legal Vemedy inade quate.** [21] We are of the option that the complaint sufficiently allegeswhe injuries whi^ will result if Youngmpwn*s pro posed plans are put into opMtion, and that the evidence sustains the <Mit*s find ing that such operations, if penwted, will constitute a trespass upon plaintiff^ ripari an rights and that the nature S these threatened injuries is such as tonentitle plaintiffs to injunctive relief. Afirmed. Ns. SI72I. Juiie«j94^ 1. DsSIcatlsa A street having been located by a plat on the shore of a lake, its dedication to the use of the public will be presumed to have been intended to enable the public to have access to the water for all proper public purposes. Mjnn.Stl941, | 505.14. 2. Mualelpal corporatisas CafiS7(f) Where it is proposed to vacate a street which is located upon a lake shore, the final test is whether the public interest will be best served by discontinuing the way. S. Evideaes Cal0(5) Judicial notice wiff be taken of the ex tensive public use being made of Lake Minnetonka for recreational purposes. 4. Msalelpal csrpsratlsas CafiS7(l) The word *'useless**, as used in statute permitting vacation of a street when it has^ become useless for the purpose for which it was laid out, should not be given any re stricted meaning, but should be given the meaning of the term as commonly defined as being of no use, uuserviceaMe, and an- twerine no desired uuroose. Minii.St.194L I 505.14. See Worda sad fbrasca. PrrouNirat Ediftoii. for an sdwr driritiros si **Ustltts'*. 8. Maalslpal esrpsrallsas #->8S7fS| In the absence of any showing that a portion of street leadmg to the lake shore had become **uselesiT, within meaning of statute permitting vacation of street when it becomes useless for the purpose for which it was laid out, refusing to act aside timely motion to reopen proceedings in which decree vacating street was entered was an abuse of disaetion. Mina.St.1941, I 505.14. 5>llabur ly lb# Coswt. 1. A dedkatioo by pUt of a street upon the shore of a meanderod lake will be pre sumed to have been uttended to enable the public to have access to the lake for all | proper public purposea 2. The final test in determining wheth er a street located laoo the shore of a i . • » 9 • • . . %n 3