1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 597 N.W.2d
  5. 597 N.W.2d 340 (1999)
 

WILLIAMS PIPELINE CO. v. SOO LINE R. CO.

Nos. C1-98-2195, C4-98-2207.

597 N.W.2d 340 (1999)

In the Matter of Condemnation by Petitioner, Williams Pipeline Company, a Delaware corporation, of Certain Lands in the City of New Brighton to Permit Relocation of Pipeline. WILLIAMS PIPELINE COMPANY, petitioner, Respondent, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Respondents Below (C1-98-2195), Soo Line Railroad Company, Respondent (C4-98-2207), MT Properties, Inc., Appellant (C1-98-2195), Respondent (C4-98-2207), Sprint Communications Company, L.P., et al., Lower Court Respondents (C4-98-2207), Minnesota Commercial Railway Company, Appellant (C4-98-2207), and State of Minnesota, by MT Properties, Inc., Appellant (C1-98-2195), v. Williams Pipeline Company, a Delaware corporation, Respondent (C1-98-2195).

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

July 27, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John M. Lefevre Jr. and Bonnie Wilkins, Kennedy & Graven, Minneapolis, for Williams Pipeline Company.

Carolyn V. Wolski, Leonard, Street & Deinard, P.A., Minneapolis, for Soo Line Railroad Company.

Timothy R. Thornton and Paul C. Thissen, Briggs & Morgan, Minneapolis, for MT Properties, Inc.

Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Wilmington, DE, lower court respondent.

Byron D. Olsen and Mark S. Radke, Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A., Minneapolis, for Minnesota Commercial Railway Company.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General; Alan C. Williams and Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota.

Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, AMUNDSON, Judge, and SCHULTZ, Judge.

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge

This appeal arises from two actions. The first is a condemnation action brought by Williams Pipeline Company (Williams) to reroute its pipeline through an existing rail yard.

The second action is a Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) suit brought by MT Properties, Inc. (MT) on behalf of the State of Minnesota, claiming that the proposed rerouting would likely cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of protectable...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases