Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65.
-
Susan Neegard, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court has explained that section 561.01 “defines a nuisance in terms of the resultant harm rather than in terms of the kind of conduct by a defendant which causes the harm.”
-
Elliott Sirota, et al., Respondents,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey,5 the Minnesota Supreme Court further defined a private nuisance as a type of damage that requires “some kind of conduct causing the nuisance harm which is wrongful.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
-
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The statute defines a nuisance in terms of the resultant harm rather than in terms of the kind of conduct by a defendant which causes the harm.”
-
Docks of White Bear Lake, LLC, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“Private nuisance is limited to real property interests.”); Highview N. Apartments v. County of Ramsey , (noting that the nuisance statute defines nuisance in terms of a “resultant harm”); Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen’s Club, Inc., (“For an interference with the enjoyment of life or property to co nstitute a nuisance, it mu st be material and
-
William O. Bradley, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
More importantly, Bradley ignores the fact that Minn. Stat. § 561.01 “ codifies an equita ble cause of action; consequently, it implicitly recognizes a need to balance the social utility of defendants’ actions with the harm to the plaintiff .” Highview N. Apartments v. Ramsey County , (emphasis added) .
-
Glacier Park Iron Ore Properties, LLC, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Because section 561.01 “codifies an equitable cause of action[,] it implicitly recognizes a need to balance the social utility of [the defendant’s] actions with the harm to the plaintiff.” Highview N. Apartments v. Ramsey C ty., see also Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co -op.
-
Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co., (noting that proximate cause is an essential element of a negligence claim); (“[T]here must be some kind of conduct causing the nuisance harm ”).
-
John Moore, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
v. Ramsey County , -71 (Minn. 1982) (citation omitted).
- Randall Norman v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Randall Norman v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Estate of Gladys I. Norby v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Company n/k/a Austin Mutual Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Estate of Gladys I. Norby v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Company n/k/a Austin Mutual Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Jovani Nassar v. Fady Chamoun Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
- Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
- Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
- Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc. 662 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc.
662 N.W.2d 546
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In applying the statute in this case, the district court read into it an additional requirement of “wrongful conduct,” -71 (Minn.1982).
- Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings
626 N.W.2d 436
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(reviewing courts must sustain damages if they are within the limits of credible estimates presented at trial).
- 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
The wrongful conduct resulting in creation of a nuisance may be intentional conduct, but can also be “negligence, ultrahazardous activity, violation of a statute or some other tortious activity.” (citations omitted).
- Matter v. Nelson 478 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Matter v. Nelson
478 N.W.2d 211
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
see Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 441 , 61 N.W.
- Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984