Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 11.05 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1980 c 607 art 14 s 48]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: NBZ Enter., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

NBZ Enter., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Does the term “processing” in Shak-opee’s zoning ordinance section 11.05, subd. 7 C 6 include the mixing of sand, gravel and cement into concrete? III.”

Gun Lake Ass'n v. Cnty. of Aitkin, 612 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “2 As of July 1998, section 11.05 of the Aitkin County zoning ordinance stated that “any decision of the Planning Commission” regarding a CUP application could be appealed to the county board within 30 days.”

OmegaGenesis Corp. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Rsch., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Minnesota 2015). “§ 11.05. Mayo’s representations regarding patentability and independent development could not be justifiably relied upon by OmegaGenesis.”

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.