Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1990 c 391 art 10 s 4]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 12
cases, 1963–1992 · leading case: Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1980).
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1980). “Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1978) provides, in pertinent part, that: If the commissioner concludes that the plans of the applicant are reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare, he shall grant the permit, and, if that be in issue,…”
Matter of Eigenheer, 453 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1988). See Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources, 356 N.”
Application of City of White Bear Lake, 247 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1976). “1971, § 105.45, to expressly state that in all permit applications the applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed project is reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect the public safety and promote the public welfare.”
Application of Christenson, 417 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 1987). “He has not sustained his burden of proving the project would be reasonable, practical and would adequately protect the public safety and promote the public welfare, as required by Minn.Stat. § 105.45. We affirm the commissioner’s order denying Christenson’s application for a…”
Application of Orr, 396 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Orr’s permit application is governed by Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (1984), which requires DNR permission before construction in Minnesota public waters.”
State v. Kuluvar, 123 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1963). “8 The standards governing the com *416 missioner’s determination to grant or refuse the permit are specifically enumerated in § 105.45, which provides in part: “If the commissioner concludes that the plans of the applicant provide for the most practical use of the waters of the…”
In Re the Excavation of Erickson Lake Ex Rel. Lahman, 392 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1984), which governs issuance of permits, states that permits shall be granted if the commissioner determines “the plans of the applicant are reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare.”
In Re the Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary, 370 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1984). The Commissioner determined the seminary did not prove that the proposal is reasonable, practical or that it would promote public welfare.”
Roach v. Comm'r of Dep't of Nat. Resources, 356 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1982); Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn.”
Cent. Baptist Theological Seminary v. City of New Brighton, 487 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “” Minn.Stat. § 105.45 (1984), quoted in Central Baptist I, 370 N.”
State, Dep't of Nat. Resources ex rel. Herbst v. Dist. Court, 208 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1973). “However, § 105.45 does not evidence any intent on the part of the legislature to permit the commissioner to attach a condition that would preclude a county board or district court from assessing benefits to state-owned lands.”
State, Dep't of Conservation Ex Rel. Leirfallom v. Sheriff, 207 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 1973). “Defendant contends that the commissioner’s order of January 22, 1962, denying him a permit is null and void because it was not made within 60 days after the completion of the hearing as required by § 105.45. We need not decide this issue because it was not raised before the…”
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.