Conklin v. County Commissioners
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1951, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bellows v. Ericson (Minn. 1951)
- State Ex Rel. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Enersen (Minn. 1950)
- Juster v. Grossman (Minn. 1949)
- O'Neill v. Kallsen (Minn. 1946)
- State Ex Rel. Minnesota National Bank v. District Court Fourth Judicial District (Minn. 1935)
- Bennett v. Wheatley (Ga. 1922)
- Lord v. County Commissioners (Me. 1909)
- Stokes v. Wall (Ga. 1900)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
By the Court. I think the plaintiff has not a right to prosecute this action. He does not show or pretend that he is damnified more, or otherwise, than any other resident of the town near or over whose land the road is laid, or who ordinarily travels on the road. The change complained of is'not on or near his land. The injury — if any — is to the community, not to him in his individnal capacity, and it is for them, not for him, to redress it; and the remedy pointed out must be pursued.
If one member of the community in- his individual capacity has a remedy for such an'injury, so has every other member. To permit this would be intolerable, and contrary to all precedent or reason.
This objection cannot properly be passed over in silence.
Writ is quashed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.