Vernco, Inc. v. Township of Manyaska, Martin County
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 2010, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Greer v. City of Eagan (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Sykes v. City of Rochester (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
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
OPINION
Plaintiffs, Vernco, Inc., Fox Lake Park, Inc., and Kenneth Nelson appeal from the order of the Martin County District Court dismissing their appeal from the proposed *444 assessment for the improvement of a road in Martin County. We reverse.
Plaintiffs attempted to serve their notice of appeal from the proposed assessment for the improvement of a road in Martin County by leaving a copy at the home of the township clerk with his mother. The district court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Minn.Stat. 429.081 (1978) requires service of the notice of appeal personally upon the mayor or clerk of the municipality. Wessen v. Village of Deephaven, 284 Minn. 296, 170 N.W.2d 126 (1969) and Franson v. Carlson, 272 Minn. 376, 137 N.W.2d 835 (1965).
While we agree that substitute service upon a municipality is an impermissible method of statutory service, the fact is undisputed that the township received actual notice of the appeal within the time provided by Minn.Stat. 429.081 (1978). . We therefore conclude that such actual notice within the time limitations provided by statute is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.