Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 153 N.W.2d 209.

86 citing documents.

In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
In the Matter of Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District, Paul Novacek, et ... Minn. 2025
The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct drainage improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39—a ditch under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners—because, under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625 (2024) a watershed district need not first take over the ditch from the county before the watershed district conducts improvement proceedings for the ditch.
City of Circle Pines Minn. 2022
Additionally, if lack of clarity in a statute raises problems involving governmental functions, “[s]uch problems should not be resolved upon technical grounds, but rather upon broad and practical considerations favoring the public interest.”
Peter Stalland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a -20 (Minn. 1967).
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bruce Township v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Exch., (stating that legislative intent may be ascertained by considering, among other things, the language of other statutes that address the same subject matter); Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 11, (stating that statutes in pari materia covering the same subject matter should be construed in light of each other).
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
See Scanlon, d at 686-87 (declining to award new trial for discovery violations where defendant did not demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from the violations); Palubicki, d at 489-90 (same); State v. Thompson, 278 Minn. 1, 32 , (concluding that the district court’s denial of discovery of a witness’s prior statement “may have been error,” but that the error was harmless because even if the witness’s testimony had been impeached, “we doubt that it would seriously affect the outcome of the cas
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 15 , (listing factors to be considered).
Middle River-Snake River Watershed District v. Dennis Drewes, Inc. 692 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Middle River-Snake River Watershed District v. Dennis Drewes, Inc. 692 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Cederberg v. City of Inver Grove Heights 686 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
would necessarily be resolved on the basis of the particular facts relevant to each individual landowner’s property.” (quoting Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Disk, 278 Minn. 1, 19 , ).
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Disk, 278 Minn. 1, 11 , see Minn.Stat.
Savre v. Independent School District No. 283 642 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Savre v. Independent School District No. 283 642 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dish, 278 Minn. 1, 11-12
Witso v. Overby 627 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 2001
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Murray County Ditch No. 34, d at 45-46 ; Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 11-12
In Re Robledo 611 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re Robledo 611 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 15
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 18 n. 36, , 221 n. 36 (1967) (interpreting Minn.Stat.
Kasdan v. Berney 587 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Kasdan v. Berney 587 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
§ 645.16 (1996); Lenz v. Coon Creek Water shed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Benz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
Matter of Welfare of JM 574 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1998
Matter of Welfare of JM 574 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1998
See Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
Meyer v. Best Western Seville Plaza Hotel 562 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Meyer v. Best Western Seville Plaza Hotel 562 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (citing Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dish, 278 Minn. 1, 9 , ); Minn.Stat.
Matter of Paternity of JAV 547 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1996
Hisgun v. Velasco 547 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1996
Matter of Paternity of JAV 547 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1996
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278 Minn. 1, 11 , see also McDonald v. Children's Home Soc.
Hisgun v. Velasco 547 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1996
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278 Minn. 1, 11 , see also McDonald v. Children’s Home Soc.
Ubel v. State 547 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1996
In Re 1994 & 1995 Shoreline Improvement Contractor Licenses of Landview Landscaping, Inc. 546 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re 1994 & 1995 Shoreline Improvement Contractor Licenses of Landview Landscaping, Inc. 546 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
6 (1994) (a properly established watershed district is a political subdivision of the state); see also Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 18 , (watershed district in a broad sense may be considered a municipal corporation).
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hyland v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 538 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 11 , (“statutes in pari materia covering the same subject matter should be construed consistently, if reasonably possible”).
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9
State Ex. Rel. Graham v. Klumpp 536 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1995
State Ex. Rel. Graham v. Klumpp 536 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1995
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1
Ed Herman & Sons v. Russell 535 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1995
Ed Herman & Sons v. Russell 535 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1995
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 9