Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 1.03 (2026)
Waters Included
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The concurrent jurisdiction of a county and of courts and officers exercising jurisdiction throughout it extends over the water area that would be included if the boundary lines of the county were produced in the direction of their approach and extended across the waters to the opposite shore.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019).
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019). “" 1 Larson, supra , § 1.03[4]. But as we noted nearly a century ago, " [e]very personal injury causes pain and suffering .”
Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 1.03 of the town’s comprehensive land use plan expressly requires the city “[t]o *355 carefully consider both the needs of the individual landowner and the needs of the public at large” when developing and implementing “plans and controls relating to land use.”
Waste Recovery Coop. of Minnesota v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 475 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “” Hennepin County, MN, Ordinance No. 12, § 1.03 (1990). Section 3.”
Minnesota Pipe & Equip. Co. v. Ameron Int'l Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 862 (D. Minn. 2013). “L (Iowa Urban Standard Specifications for Public Improvements Manual-Definitions (“SUDAS Definitions”) Section 1.03), Oct. 31, 2012, Docket No. 33 (emphasis added).”
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co., 869 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 2015). “Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation § 1.03[4], at 1-9 (rev. ed. 2015) (“In [workers’] compensation, unlike tort, the only injuries compensated for are those which either actually or presumptively produce disability and thereby presumably affect earning power.”
State v. Everett, 472 N.W.2d 864 (Minn. 1991). “Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit, § 1.03 (1989 ed.). 4 .The ABA Standards Relating to the Defense Function contain an identical standard, 4-7.”
Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “Keppel, Minnesota Practice, § 1.03 (1998). Here, communications from an assistant city attorney informed both the city council and relator that “[t]he hearing will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § § 14.”
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013). “Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 1.03 (2012) (explaining that the assessment of liability for workers’ compensation benefits “is not a matter of assessing blame”).”
Tynan v. KSTP, Inc., 77 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1956). ““Section 1.03 — No Strike or Lockout “There shall be no stoppage of operations either by strike or lockout during the term of this agreement because of any dispute over matters relating to the provisions herein, or during the time that any grievances or other matter is under…”
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC, 784 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Mootz, III, 1 New Appleman on Insurance Law: Essentials of Insurance Law § 1.03[1] (2009) (Appleman). But because most contracts act to transfer risk to some degree, a more exact analysis is required to determine if a particular contract is an insurance contract.”
Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minn. 1992). “Because the purpose of the conversion action is to force title on the defendant and make him pay for the full value of the property, conversion is typically limited to instances where the plaintiff has been completely and permanently deprived of his property.”
Hutchinson Tel. Co. v. Fronteer Directory Co. of Minnesota, 586 F. Supp. 911 (D. Minn. 1984). “In his treatise on copyright, Professor Nimmer confirms this court’s recognition of the purposes of the Act: [T]he authorization to grant to individual authors the limited monopoly of copyright is predicated upon the dual premises that the public benefits from the creative…”
Minn. Stat. § 1.03(a): 1 case
Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minn. 1992). “Because the purpose of the conversion action is to force title on the defendant and make him pay for the full value of the property, conversion is typically limited to instances where the plaintiff has been completely and permanently deprived of his property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.