# HOUSING & REDEVEL. AUTHOR. OF MINNEAPOLIS v. Mpls. Metropolitan Co.

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · August 5, 1960 · 259 Minn. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696137

## Case

- **Full name:** Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** August 5, 1960
- **Citations:** 259 Minn. 1; 104 N.W.2d 864; 1960 Minn. LEXIS 643
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Loevinger
- **Judges:** Gallagher, Loevinger, Murphy, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696137

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding court may not substitute its own judgment for that of condemning authority as to what is necessary and proper to carry out purpose of plan

## Opinion text

*17 Loevinger, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the disposition of this case by the court but dissent from the court’s opinion with respect to the second point.
Relator contends that the Authority has not complied with the statutory mandate to find or provide “a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families to be displaced from the project area.” Minn. St. 462.531. From an examination of the record I am not convinced that the Authority has complied with this mandate. The record may be incomplete on this point, but we take it as it comes to us. It does not establish that the Authority in this respect has done “all that is necessary under the act.”
However, the Metropolitan Building provides no housing and its destruction will involve no loss of housing. Relator has shown no interest, distinguishable from that of any member of the public, in the provision of housing for those displaced from this area. Consequently it has no standing to raise this issue. In re Settlement of Cegon, 212 Minn. 75 , 2 N. W. (2d) 433 ; Schultz v. Krosch, 204 Minn. 585 , 284 N. W. 782 ; Sackette v. City of Duluth, 201 Minn. 121 , 275 N. W. 617 ; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504 , 297 N. W. 9 . Accordingly, I deem it inappropriate that the court should pass upon this issue and believe that the action of the district court should be affirmed without the comments relating to this point that appear in the court’s opinion.
Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696137. Public record. Not legal advice.