In re Klossner
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 1936, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Alteration of Highway in Counties of Fillmore & Houston (Minn. 1924)
- County of Blue Earth v. Williams (Minn. 1936)
- In re Establishment of Judicial Road (Minn. 1928)
- In re Establishment of Judicial Road (Minn. 1928)
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
Certiorari to review the order of the district court in establishing a judicial highway in the counties of Blue Earth and Brown pursuant to Laws 1921, p. 436, c. 323, § 41.
The necessity or propriety of establishing a judicial highway is a legislative question. The most recent case involving the ques
The court ordered that each county pay the cost of the construction of the road within its. limits. This is claimed to be error by Blue Earth county, upon the ground that the most expensive portion of the construction is within its limits and that Brown should contribute.
Whether this question is properly raised by the writ issued upon the joint application of the two counties, we do not stop to consider.
Subdivision 5 of section 41 provides that if the court establishes a judicial highway it “shall direct the time and manner of opening the same for public use.” A certified copy of the order is transmitted to the auditor of each county and “upon receipt of such order the county board shall proceed in accordance with its terms to open so much of the road as lies within its county for public use.” We do not find that the statute provides machinery for the construction of a judicial highway as a joint project under the direction of the court, or that it intends that one county shall share the expense of constructing the highway in another. The provision of subdivision 4 that “such damages, when finally determined, and all expenses incurred in the establishment, alteration or vacation, including compensation for right of way, shall be paid by the counties through, into or between which such road passes, each county paying its just proportion, as determined by the court,” refers to the items of damages and expenses incurred in the proceeding in the court resulting in the establishment of the highway. It does not refer to the cost of subsequent construction. By section 1, subdivision 3, the words “county roads,” include “all roads lying within the county, or on the line between counties, established by judicial proceedings.”
There is no error in the order requiring each county to construct the portion of the highway within its limits. The statute puts the burden there.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.