Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 132.

34 citing documents.

Application for a Sulfate Site-Specific Standard for Hay Lake (AUID 31-0037-00), located downstream of the U.S. Steel - … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See In re Crown Coco, Inc., -37 (Minn. App. 1990) (concluding that a 18 decision to deny reimbursement to any responsible persons whose cleanup costs are already covered by insurance was a rule because it did not “involve the application of specific facts to specific parties”).
In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack’s Request to … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Matter of the Petition of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for a Declaration that the … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Joel Storland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Economic injury or t he prospect of economic injury may be sufficient to establish standing.” In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc.
United States Steel Corporation, Relator v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
United States Steel Corporation, Relator v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the legislature has placed the issue in the hands of an administrative official that official’s decision ought to be based on a careful expression of all interested viewpoints.” In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., (quotation and citations omitted), review withdrawn (Minn. Sept .14, 1990).
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc.
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
29, 1991); In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., (recognizing that “the agency’s action is authorized by the statute itself” when an agency’s interpretation is consistent with the plain language of a statute).
GH Holdings, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 840 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
GH Holdings, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Commerce 840 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[T]he Act governs liability and procedures for releases of petroleum into the environment and establishes a fund for reimbursement of cleanup costs for such spills.” In re Crown CoCo, Inc., review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees 820 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees 820 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Cable Communications, d at 667 ; In re Application of Crown, CoCo, Inc., review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Builders Ass'n v. City of St. Paul 819 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Builders Ass'n v. City of St. Paul 819 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
To establish standing, a party must have suffered “some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.” In re Crown CoCo, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See In re Applieation of Crown CoCo, Inc., (“Economic injury or the prospect of economic injury may be sufficient to establish standing”).
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“Economic injury or the prospect of economic injury may be sufficient to establish standing.” In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc.
L & D Trucking v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 600 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
L & D Trucking v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 600 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-95 (Minn.App.1988); see also In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., (stating that board’s policy was rule of general applicability and future effect, not case-by-case determination), review withdrawn (Minn. Sept.
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
20, 1993); In re Crown CoCo, Inc., -36 (Minn.App.
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
review denied (Minn. July 15, 1993); In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., (to prevent double recovery and further purposes of Act, Petrofund reimbursements denied to responsible persons whose cleanup costs already covered by insurance).
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Application of Crown CoCo, Inc., -37 (Minn.App.1990), this court held that the Board’s decision that insured costs were not reimbursable was a “rule” which had to be promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re Application of Crown CoCo, Inc.
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Where a statute or rule does not explicitly declare *810 the consequences of a failure to comply, “we construe the language as directory only.” E.g., In Re Application of Crown Coco, Inc., (construing rule); see also Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 176-77 , (construing statute).
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 469 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 469 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See In re Crown Coco, Inc., -37 (Minn.App.1990) (a rule has general application and future effect, whereas a policy may be based on facts as applied to a specific party).