Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762.

61 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mankato Motorsports … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 780 (Minn. 1977) (explaining that legislature established quietude “as a protectable natural resource” and that noise may pollute, impair, or destroy “the natural resources of the area”).
Explained Herbert A. Igbanugo, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, -83 (Minn. 1977).
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, )).
Jeffrey A. August, Relator v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 868 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey A. August, Relator v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 868 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, (considering noise levels in the context of establishing a prima facie MERA violation even when the MPCA had not issued a standard regulating noise for skeet shooting); Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen’s Club, Inc.
In Re Petition for Distribution of Attorney�s Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 855 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re Petition for Distribution of Attorney�s Fees between Stowman Law Firm, P.A., and Lori Peterson Law Firm, … 855 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
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
Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, 783 (Minn.1977) (affirming injunction prohibiting gun club from opening trap- and skeet-shooting facility); Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen’s Club, Inc., -07 (Minn.App.2001) (affirming permanent injunction preventing operation of shooting range).
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Minn. Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, (stating that proof of pollution, impairment; or destruction of protectable resource may be made by showing conduct complained of materially, adversely affects resource).
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
izing that there are instances when environmental regulations may not keep up with changing conditions, the statute also provides that a plaintiff may bring a claim if the defendant has caused or is “likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources.” Id.; see also Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, , 771 n. 6 (Minn.1977) (holding that the fact that Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had not
Matter of University of Minnesota 566 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Matter of University of Minnesota 566 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, in support of their argument that the MPCA should have imposed a limitation on mercury emission despite the absence of state or federal standards governing mercury emission.
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
.g., (analyzing prudent and feasible alternatives to building county jail on historic 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 pro
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
Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Interest Resource Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, (stating that “the city * * * has no authority to issue a permit or grant a variance which allows pollution, impairment, or destruction of the environment within the meaning of” the environmental statutes).
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 483 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1992
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 483 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1992
Following the standard set out in Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, it first reasoned that the alleged natural resources were not natural resources within the meaning of Minn.Stat.
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
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club
State Ex Rel. Drabik v. Martz 451 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Ex Rel. Drabik v. Martz 451 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
4; Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Levinson 438 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Levinson 438 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 416 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skramstad v. Otter Tail County 417 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 416 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, -783 (Minn.1977).
Skramstad v. Otter Tail County 417 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club
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
Appellants cite MPIRG v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, in which the court stated: [I]n 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.
Wilson v. Saetre 393 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilson v. Saetre 393 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, -83 (Minn.1977).
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
DISCUSSION The Minnesota Supreme Court in Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, held: The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act does not prescribe elaborate standards to guide trial courts but allows a case-by-case determination by use of a balancing test, analogous to the one traditionally employed by courts of equity, where the utility of a defendant’s conduct which interferes wi
Caponi v. Carlson 392 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Caponi v. Carlson 392 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minn. Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, -83 (Minn.1977).
Marriage of Kroeplin v. Haugen 390 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kroeplin v. Haugen 390 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 388 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1986
On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s decision, Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club, adding, however, that our affirmance was not intended to preclude the gun club from attempting remedial action which might bring its operation into compliance with the environmental rights act.
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 377 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo 377 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986