Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kuluvar, 123 N.W.2d 699.

35 citing documents.

In re City of Cohasset’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Frontier … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(interpreting and applying similar language in Minn. Stat. § 105.42).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We are not persuade d. “The fact that taxpayers must rely on common sense and intelligence to determin e whether their conduct complies with [Minnesota tax] law does not render the law unconstitutionally vague on its face.” (citing State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 417, (providing that use of broad, flexible standards requiring exercise of judgment does not render statut e unconstitutional)).
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Instead, uncertainty invalidates a statute only when those subject to it cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular act is forbidden or permitted.” Enyeart, d at 319 (citing State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 417, ).
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
While any riparian rights that the Barths could assert if they prevailed are “subordinate to the rights of the public and subject to reasonable control and regulation by the state,” State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 418 , the public’s rights to land abutting Lake Pepin is at issue in this case.
Bloomquist v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 704 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bloomquist v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 704 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“Riparian rights are subordinate to the rights of the public and subject to reasonable control and regulation by the state.” State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 418
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 417
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
It is firmly established that “riparian rights are subordinate to the rights of the public and subject to reasonable control and regulation by the state.” State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 418
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 511 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 416
Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
See, e.g. State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , State v. Sheriff, 296 Minn. 177 , State
State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , the supreme court held that section 105.42 on its face was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not deprive a riparian owner of his property without due process of law.
State v. Suter 346 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 300 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1980
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 300 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1980
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408, 418 , Reeves v. Backus-Brooks Co., 83 Minn. 339 , 86 N.W.
State, Department of Natural Resources Ex Rel. Commissioner v. Olson 275 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1979
State, Department of Natural Resources Ex Rel. Commissioner v. Olson 275 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1979
Because we have previously held that the permit requirement set out in § 105.42 is not on its face unconstitutional, see, State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , the drainage of the lake without a permit is impermissible and the maintenance of the artificial drain should be enjoined.
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
State v. Larson Transfer & Storage, Inc. 246 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408
State, Department of Conservation Ex Rel. Leirfallom v. Sheriff 207 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1973
State, Department of Conservation Ex Rel. Leirfallom v. Sheriff 207 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1973
ly or partly within the state, without a written permit from the commissioner previously obtained.” Section 105.55 provides: “Upon application of the commissioner, the district court * * * may by injunction * * * restrain the violation of, any order of the commissioner made pursuant to sections 105.37 to 105.55, or restrain the violation of sections 105.37 to 105.55.” We held in State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , that the prohibition in § 105.42 against changing the cross-section of any public wa
State v. Simmons 158 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Ruffin 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 ; Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Bell, 280 Minn. 55 , 157 N. W. (2d) 760 .
State v. Simmons 158 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 .
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
State v. Bell 157 N.W.2d 760 Minn. 1968
Criminal statutes must be sufficiently clear and definite to inform a person of ordinary intelligence what the statute is aimed at, State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 ; and people of ordinary intelligence must not be made to guess at the meaning of the statute.
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
State v. Target Stores, Inc. 156 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1968
52 See, State v. Parker, 183 Minn. 588 , ; State v. North *472 west Poultry & Egg Co. 203 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , ; Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N. W. (2d) 776 ; State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408 , 123 N. W. (2d) 699 .