§ 116B.02

State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth · 1997 22 citations

+ 22 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Krmpotich v. City of Duluth · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · 1980 3 citations

. “Natural resources” is defined in Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, subd. 4 (1978), as including, but not limited to:

. “Natural resources” is defined in Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, subd. 4 (1978), as including, but not limited to:

(Emphasis added.) The above definition sections apply to both Chapters 116B and 116D. Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.02, subd. 1 (1978); 116D.04, subd. 5(b, c) (1978).

SST, INC. v. City of Minneapolis · 1979 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Jeffrey A. August, Relator v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners · 2006 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Zander v. State · 2005 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. · 2001 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Stansell v. City of Northfield · 2000 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

National Audubon Society v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

White v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Matter of University of Minnesota · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Certificate of Need for Construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Krmpotich v. City of Duluth · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Drabik v. Martz · 1990 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Winona County Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator · 1989 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

STATE EX REL. NEIGHBORS ORG., ETC. v. Dotty · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State ex rel. Neighbors Organized in Support of the Environment v. Dotty · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Knox v. Impact MHC Management, LLC · 2025 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

Soo Line Railroad Ex Rel. Minnesota v. B.J. Carney & Co. · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Werlein v. United States · 1990 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

United States v. Reserve Mining Company · 1974 2 citations

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5