§
Subdivision 1.Intervention.
Except as otherwise provided in section 116B.10, in any administrative, licensing, or other similar proceeding, and in any action for judicial review thereof which is made available by law, any natural person residing within the state, the attorney general, any political subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, or any partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity having shareholders, members, partners, or employees residing within the state shall be permitted to intervene as a party upon the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct that has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state.
§
Subd. 2.Grounds.
In any such administrative, licensing, or other similar proceedings, the agency shall consider the alleged impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state and no conduct shall be authorized or approved which does, or is likely to have such effect so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct.
§
Subd. 3.Judicial review.
In any action for judicial review of any administrative, licensing, or other similar proceeding as described in subdivision 1, the court shall, in addition to any other duties imposed upon it by law, grant review of claims that the conduct caused, or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state, and in granting such review it shall act in accordance with the provisions of sections 116B.01 to 116B.13 and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Notes of Decisions
Corwine v. Crow Wing Cnty., 244 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1976).
· cites it 3× “1971 Section 116B.09, now part of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, natural persons are empowered to intervene as a matter of right and as parties in this permit proceeding on the filing of this verified pleading with the Board of County Commissioners.”
Floodwood-Fine Lakes Citizens Grp. v. Minnesota Env't Quality Council, 287 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 8× “rookston (2) Audible and visual impacts on recreation, favoring Floodwood/Fine Lakes (3) Geological reliability of solid waste storage, favoring Floodwood/Fine Lakes (4) On-site aquatic ecology, favoring Floodwood/Fine Lakes (5) Impact on avoidance areas of high voltage…”
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “, Minn.Stat. § 116B.09 (1992). Ill The final issue is whether the district court correctly denied Bolander’s motion for a temporary injunction against the operation of the city’s concrete recycling facility.”
Matter of Univ. of Minnesota, 566 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 116B.09, subd. 2. MEPA incorporates by reference the definition of “pollution, impairment or destruction” contained in MERA.”
Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 289 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 116B.09, subd. 2 (1978), states: In any such administrative, licensing, or other similar proceedings, the agency shall consider the alleged impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state and no…”
SST, INC. v. City of Minneapolis, 288 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Brett Smith, individually, and Friends of the Forum moved to intervene pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 116B.09 and/or Rule 24, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 483 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Finally, it held that the trial court erred in finding that the developer met its burden of proof in showing a lack of reasonable alternatives under Minn.”
In Re the Solid Waste Permit for the NSP Red Wing Ash Disposal Facility, 421 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Judicial review of agency decisions through the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act under these acts is provided in Minn.Stat. § 116B.09, subd. 3 (1986). These environmental acts alone do not create the right to a contested case hearing, however.”
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Adams, 482 F. Supp. 170 (D. Minnesota 1979).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 116B.09. In this administrative proceeding, any organization or natural person can intervene as a matter of right.”
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.