Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite COUNTY OF FREEBORN BY TUVESON v. Bryson, 243 N.W.2d 316.

41 citing documents.

Lisa Thielen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Appellants’ reliance on Magraw v. Donovan, 163 F. Supp. 184 (D. Minn. 1958), is misplaced.
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178 , in which the supreme court noted “a perceived legislative intent to subordinate the county’s interest in highways to the state’s paramount concern for the protection of natural resources.” Id.
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[I]t is the duty of the courts to support the legislative goal of protecting our environmental resources.” County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad 597 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad 597 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 180
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
Quality Council, (noting state’s policy 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 ac
McLeod County Board of Commissioners v. State, Department of Natural Resources 549 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
McLeod County Board of Commissioners v. State, Department of Natural Resources 549 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
McGuire v. County of Scott 525 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
site); Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building highway over a lake); Minnesota Public Interest Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, (analyzing material adverse effect of noise pollution created by gun club expansion); County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178 , (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives for proposed highway over marsh); State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin 495 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1993
State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin 495 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1993
Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
Application of Christenson 417 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1987
A statutory notice provision that would in any way delay formal designation of these waterbodies could jeopardize the protection of this natural resource whose value we recognized and endorsed in County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178
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
See County of Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178
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
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake 297 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1980
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake 297 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1980
See County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188-89
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
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 289 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1980
This principle was discussed by the court in County of Freeborn v. Bryson (Bryson II), 309 Minn. 178, 186 , as follows: Turning then to the second issue presented by this appeal, we note that the affirmátive defense under the Act is apparently derived from Federal environmental law.
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188
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 *89 Freeborn by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 187
State Ex Rel. Skeie v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1979
State Ex Rel. Skeie v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1979
116B.01 to 116B.13; County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178
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
County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178 , Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , MPIRG v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, Minn.
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
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
We then reversed and remanded in County of Freeborn v. Bryson, Minn., stating that in the absence of unusual or extraordinary factors, the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act requires that a trial court enjoin environmentally destructive conduct if a feasible and prudent alternative is shown.
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
In County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188 , we said: “* * * Whether for highways or for numerous other reasons * * * it is a well-known fact that marshes have been drained almost indiscriminately over the past 50 years, greatly reducing their numbers.