§ 116B.04

State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth · 1997 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin · 1993 6 citations

+ 6 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 1 citation

(Emphasis added.) The methodology for applying the environmental legislation is set out in Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 (1978):

State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... · 2024 4 citations

+ 4 more citations 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 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

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

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

McGuire v. County of Scott · 1994 7 citations

Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 (1992). All reported MERA cases have been decided under the burden of proof procedure outlined in the second paragraph. See, e.g., State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416 (Minn.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building county jail on historic site); Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.1980) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building highway over a lake); Minnesota Public Interest Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.1977) (analyzing material adverse effect of noise pollution created by gun club expansion); County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 243 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.1976) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives for proposed highway over marsh); State ex rel. Wacouta Twp. v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. App.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to logging near eagle roosts); see also David P. Bryden, Environmental Rights in Theory and Practice, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 163 (1978) (analyzing first five years of litigation under MERA and noting no cases raised under the first paragraph). Thus this case presents a question of first impression.

Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 (1992). All reported MERA cases have been decided under the burden of proof procedure outlined in the second paragraph. See, e.g., State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416 (Minn.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building county jail on historic site); Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.1980) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building highway over a lake); Minnesota Public Interest Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.1977) (analyzing material adverse effect of noise pollution created by gun club expansion); County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 243 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.1976) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives for proposed highway over marsh); State ex rel. Wacouta Twp. v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. App.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to logging near eagle roosts); see also David P. Bryden, Environmental Rights in Theory and Practice, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 163 (1978) (analyzing first five years of litigation under MERA and noting no cases raised under the first paragraph). Thus this case presents a question of first impression.

Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 (1992). All reported MERA cases have been decided under the burden of proof procedure outlined in the second paragraph. See, e.g., State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416 (Minn.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building county jail on historic site); Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.1980) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building highway over a lake); Minnesota Public Interest Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.1977) (analyzing material adverse effect of noise pollution created by gun club expansion); County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 243 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.1976) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives for proposed highway over marsh); State ex rel. Wacouta Twp. v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. App.1993) (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to logging near eagle roosts); see also David P. Bryden, Environmental Rights in Theory and Practice, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 163 (1978) (analyzing first five years of litigation under MERA and noting no cases raised under the first paragraph). Thus this case presents a question of first impression.

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. · 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 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Adams · 1979 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

United States v. Reserve Mining Company · 1974 2 citations

The Congress in its mandate to the judiciary in cases of this type has instructed the Court to give due consideration to the economic feasibility of securing abatement of the pollution. 33 U.S.C. § 1160(h). The legislature of Minnesota in Minn. Stat. 116B.04 and the common law requires the same. This means that a Court must look at what modifications must be made by the polluter to abate the problem, how much they will cost both in capital expenditures and increased operating costs, and whether or not the owners can afford such expenditures. The Court hereinafter makes its finding on the question of “economics” but withholds in this part of the opinion its decision on how such economic considerations will be weighed as against the public health considerations. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when called upon to interpret similar language in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., in the case of Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C.Cir. No. 72-1713, 1974), ruled:

The Congress in its mandate to the judiciary in cases of this type has instructed the Court to give due consideration to the economic feasibility of securing abatement of the pollution. 33 U.S.C. § 1160(h). The legislature of Minnesota in Minn. Stat. 116B.04 and the common law requires the same. This means that a Court must look at what modifications must be made by the polluter to abate the problem, how much they will cost both in capital expenditures and increased operating costs, and whether or not the owners can afford such expenditures. The Court hereinafter makes its finding on the question of “economics” but withholds in this part of the opinion its decision on how such economic considerations will be weighed as against the public health considerations. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when called upon to interpret similar language in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., in the case of Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C.Cir. No. 72-1713, 1974), ruled: