Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 105. DIVISION OF WATERS, SOILS AND MINERALS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 105.42 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1990 c 391 art 10 s 4]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 20 cases, 1963–1990 · leading case: Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 8× “6 (1983); see also Minn.Stat. § 105.42 (1982); 6 MCAR 1.5022 et seq.”
State v. Kuluvar, 123 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 10× “t November 28, 1960, defendant “did wrongfully and unlawfully change the cross-section of certain public waters, to wit: Rainy Lake, by then and there digging and moving from one place to another from the bed of said lake certain soil, sand, gravel, and other materials therein,”…”
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 4× “In May 1978 the DOT, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 105.42 (1978), applied to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for a permit to cross Blackhawk Lake.”
State v. Feehan, 412 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “*312 Also pertinent to this appeal are various objections Feehan raised prior to testimony of the first witness: (a) Minn.Stat. § 105.42 (1984) is unconstitutionally vague; (b) his conviction should be reversed because the prosecutor failed to give proper Rasmussen notice of its…”
In Re the Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary, 370 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “He concluded that granting of a permit would violate Minn.Stat. § 105.42, subd. 1; Minn. Stat.”
In Re Kaldahl, 418 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 10× “In November 1984, a DNR officer *534 issued a citation to Kaldahl for altering a cross-section of protected waters without a permit in violation of Minn.Stat. § 105.42 (1984). The district court noted that section 105.”
Matter of Eigenheer, 453 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “A misdemeanor prosecution charging Eigenheer with alteration of public waters in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 105.42 (1) and 105.541 has been continued pending resolution of this administrative matter.”
United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F. Supp. 11 (D. Minnesota 1974). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 105.42 requires a permit from the Commissioner of Natural Resources before any entity may build dams or in any manner change the course, current or cross section of public waters.”
State v. Kaldahl, 381 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 10× “Kaldahl under Minn.Stat. § 105.42, subd. 1 (1984). We dismiss the appeal.”
Application of City of White Bear Lake, 247 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1976). “1971, § 105.42, gave the state authority to control any activity which changed the course, current, or cross section of public waters.”
Lindberg v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 381 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “1 feet, (2) Lindberg performed work *496 below the ordinary high water mark without obtaining a permit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 105.42 , but (3) the work did not significantly change or diminish the cross section of the lake.”
State, Dep't of Nat. Resources Ex Rel. Comm'r v. Olson, 275 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1979). “Because we have previously held that the permit requirement set out in § 105.42 is not on its face unconstitutional, see, State v.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.