Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 210 N.W.2d 290.

37 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth 563 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1997
State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue Earth 563 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1997
olicy of nonproliferation of power lines and stating that “paramount” concern for natural resources means “superior to all others”); Freeborn County by Tuveson v. Bryson (Bryson II), 309 Minn. 178, 188 , (noting that “it is the duty of the courts to support the legislative goal of protecting our environmental resources”); Freeborn County by Tuveson v. Bryson (Bryson I), 297 Minn. 218, 225-29 , -98 (1973) (granting temporary injunction against the taking of .7 acres of a marsh out of a 7 acre tra
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex. Rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp. 510 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See also County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 228 , (marsh and wildlife it supports are natural resource).
Poured Concrete Foundations Inc. v. Andron, Inc. 507 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Poured Concrete Foundations Inc. v. Andron, Inc. 507 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 230 , 2 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 41.22 (2d ed. 1985).
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 483 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1992
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 483 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1992
2 (1990); Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 474 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 227-29
STATE EX REL. NEIGHBORS ORG., ETC. v. Dotty 396 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
STATE EX REL. NEIGHBORS ORG., ETC. v. Dotty 396 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , see § 116B.02, subds.
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellants rely on County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , to support their contention that the County should be prevented from its proposed construction.
In Re the Central Baptist Theological Seminary 370 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Central Baptist Theological Seminary 370 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 220
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178 , Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146 , and Urban Council
County of Freeborn v. Bryson 294 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1980
County of Freeborn v. Bryson 294 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1980
However, in County of Freeborn v. Bryson (Bryson I), 297 Minn. 218 , and County of Freeborn v. Bryson (Bryson II), 309 Minn. 178 , appellants raised a successful defense of their action based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn.Stat.
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 289 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1980
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 289 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1980
See, County of Freeborn v. Bryson (Bryson I), 297 Minn. 218, 228
Cooperative Power Ass'n v. Aasand 288 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1980
Cooperative Power Ass'n v. Aasand 288 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1980
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Erickson 285 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1979
State Ex Rel. Powderly v. Erickson 285 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1979
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , Minn.St.
State Ex Rel. Skeie v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1979
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
As we interpreted this section in County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 228 , in order to make “a prima facie showing” the plaintiff must prove the existence of “(l)[a] protecti-ble natural resource, and (2) pollution, impairment or destruction of that resource.” PEER alleged that Route 7 would impair, pollute, and destroy both a 130-acre virgin oak woods and
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
116B.04 as it applies to the burden of proof in *769 County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218
Application of City of White Bear Lake 247 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1976
Application of City of White Bear Lake 247 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1976
Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct.” 4 This statute was given a broad scope in County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , in which this court reversed a district court’s denial of an injunction preventing a county from constructing a roadway which would elimi *156 nate a portion of a marsh.
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
Corwine v. Crow Wing County 244 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1976
3 These facts are sufficient under this court’s decision in County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218 , to make a prima facie case that the campground would materially and adversely affect the environment.
COUNTY OF FREEBORN BY TUVESON v. Bryson 243 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1976
COUNTY OF FREEBORN BY TUVESON v. Bryson 243 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1976
We said: “* * * From the language of the act, we conclude that the legislature intended in appropriate cases that the power of eminent domain possessed by governmental subdivisions— including the power of a county to condemn land for a public highway — was to be limited by the provisions of the act.” County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 227

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by