Title: City of Brainerd, Respondent (A11-0644), vs. Brainerd Investments Partnership, et al., Respondents Below (A11-0644), Roger Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-0644); Betty Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-1471), vs. City of Brainerd, Minnesota, Respondent (A11-1471).

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0644 A11-1471 City of Brainerd, Respondent (A11-0644), vs. Brainerd Investments Partnership, et al., Respondents Below (A11-0644), Roger Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-0644); Betty Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-1471), vs. City of Brainerd, Minnesota, Respondent (A11-1471). O R D E R Upon the court’s own motion and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion filed on March 13, 2013, is amended on page 1 and page 12 to reflect Justice Wright’s participation in the consideration and decision of the above-entitled case. The corrected pages are attached to this order. Dated: March 25, 2013 BY THE COURT: /s/ Lorie S. Gildea Chief Justice 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0644 A11-1471 Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Dissenting, Anderson, G. Barry, J., Anderson, Paul, J. City of Brainerd, Respondent (A11-0644), vs. Filed: March 13, 2013 Office of Appellate Courts Brainerd Investments Partnership, et al., Respondents Below (A11-0644), Roger Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-0644); Betty Anda, et al., Appellants (A11-1471), vs. City of Brainerd, Minnesota, Respondent (A11-1471). ________________________ Gerald W. Von Korff, Rinke Noonan, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, for appellants. George C. Hoff, Justin L. Templin, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for respondent. 12 In sum, under the common and ordinary meaning of “owner,” the State of Minnesota is an owner that may petition a municipality for an improvement under Minn. Stat. § 429.031, subd. 1(f). Because CLC is an “owner,” we hold that CLC’s petition under section 429.031, subdivision 1(f) is valid. Affirmed.