Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1990 c 391 art 10 s 4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1963–1992 · leading case: Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 300 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 1980).
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 300 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 105.38 (1979). The Company argues that, by granting the City's application for permits for the construction of two wells and denying the Company's application, the DNR has deprived the Company of its property rights to a reasonable use of the underground water…”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 457 N.W.2d 175 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 4× “Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the state is the injured third party asserting claims against the insureds.”
Application of Christenson, 417 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 8× “1 (1986), which provides for published notice of the inventory and mapping of the state’s wetlands and public waters, is constitutionally valid on its face and as applied to the petitioner under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; and whether the reservation of…”
Pratt v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 6× “The 1980 version of section 105.38 continues this policy, stating: “Subject to existing rights all public waters and wetlands are subject to the control of the state.”
Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “024 (1982) and Minn.Stat. §§ 105.38 and 105.42, subd. 1 (1982) made it clear that the public policy of this state is that the DNR is to have exclusive authority to grant or deny permits for dredging in lak-ebeds of public waters.”
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake, 297 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 14× “From 1947 to 1979, the definition of public waters was contained in Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1). Section 105.38(1), as enacted in 1947, provided that “subject to existing rights all waters in streams and lakes wholly within the state * * * which are capable of substantial…”
In Re the Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary, 370 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1). These existing rights are the seminary’s riparian rights.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Todd Cnty. Hearings Unit, 356 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The public status of water resources, previously defined in terms of “material beneficial public purpose,” Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1) (1978) (amended 1979), is now defined in terms of physical characteristics of bodies of water or wetlands.”
United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F. Supp. 11 (D. Minnesota 1974). · cites it 2× “The following are relevant portions of Minnesota law relating to water permits: Minn.Stat. § 105.38(1): Subject to existing rights all waters of the state which serve a beneficial public purpose are public waters subject to the control of the state.”
State v. Kuluvar, 123 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 2× “42 is an integral part, is designed, as expressly declared in § 105.38, “to conserve and utilize the water resources of the state in the best interests of the people of the state, and for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare, * * *.”
Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary v. City of New Brighton, 487 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “Under Minn.Stat. § 105.38(1) (1984) “[sjubject to existing rights all public waters and wetlands are subject to the control of the state.”
Application of City of White Bear Lake, 247 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1976). “1971, § 105.38, containing the declaration of policy, was amended as follows (L.”
— Minn. Stat. § 105.38(1) — 12 cases
Application of Christenson, 417 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 1987). “1 (1986), which provides for published notice of the inventory and mapping of the state’s wetlands and public waters, is constitutionally valid on its face and as applied to the petitioner under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; and whether the reservation of…”
Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 300 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 1980). “Minn.Stat. § 105.38 (1979). The Company argues that, by granting the City's application for permits for the construction of two wells and denying the Company's application, the DNR has deprived the Company of its property rights to a reasonable use of the underground water…”
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake, 297 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1980). “From 1947 to 1979, the definition of public waters was contained in Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1). Section 105.38(1), as enacted in 1947, provided that “subject to existing rights all waters in streams and lakes wholly within the state * * * which are capable of substantial…”
In Re the Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary, 370 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “” Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1). These existing rights are the seminary’s riparian rights.”
Pratt v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1981). “The 1980 version of section 105.38 continues this policy, stating: “Subject to existing rights all public waters and wetlands are subject to the control of the state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 105.38(2) — 1 case
Pratt v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1981). “The 1980 version of section 105.38 continues this policy, stating: “Subject to existing rights all public waters and wetlands are subject to the control of the state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 105.38(3) — 1 case
In Re the Alteration of the Outlet Elevation of Plum Grove Lake, 297 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1980). “From 1947 to 1979, the definition of public waters was contained in Minn. Stat. § 105.38 (1). Section 105.38(1), as enacted in 1947, provided that “subject to existing rights all waters in streams and lakes wholly within the state * * * which are capable of substantial…”
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.