Justia Transportation Law Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in Minnesota Supreme Court
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.
Nissan North America, Inc., a motor vehicle manufacturer, and Stephen McDaniels, a prospective Nissan dealer (collectively, Defendants), sought to relocate a Nissan dealership to a location 7.6 miles from a dealership operated by Wayzata Nissan, LLC. Wayzata filed an action against Defendants and then moved for a temporary restraining order, challenging the relocation under the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act, Minn. Stat. 80E.01-.17. The district court denied the motion, determining that the exception in section 80E.14(1) for the “relocation of an existing dealer” applied. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed on the merits, holding (1) even though the relocation at issue has already occurred this appeal is not moot; (2) the notice and good-cause requirements of section 80E.14(1) apply on the date that a manufacturer develops the intention to authorize a relocation, not on the date of the physical relocation of a dealership; and (3) the existing-dealer exception does not apply when the relocation of a dealership is accompanied by a change in the person or entity operating the dealership, and therefore, the existing-dealer exception does not apply in this case. View "Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc." on Justia Law
State Comm’r of Transp. v. Kettleson
The Commission of Transportation requested a condemnation order for a portion of appellant Richard Lepak's land for the improvement and widening of a highway. After a condemnation hearing, the district court concluded that improving and widening the highway was a legitimate public purpose and that the state Department of Transportation had established a reasonable necessity. Therefore, the district court rejected the challenged to the proposed taking, and the court of appeals affirmed. At issue on review was whether the State had a valid public purpose for the taking because part of Lepak's land would be used to build a private road to mitigate damages to a neighboring parcel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the purpose of the taking in this case met the definition of "public use" or "public purpose" as set forth in Minn. Stat. 117.025.