Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 116B.10 (2026)

Civil Action Against State

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Civil actions.

As hereinafter provided in this section, 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 may maintain a civil action in the district court for declaratory or equitable relief against the state or any agency or instrumentality thereof where the nature of the action is a challenge to an environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit promulgated or issued by the state or any agency or instrumentality thereof for which the applicable statutory appeal period has elapsed.

Subd. 2.Burden of proof.

In any action maintained under this section the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit is inadequate to protect the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction. The plaintiff shall have the burden of proving the existence of material evidence showing said inadequacy of said environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit.

Subd. 3.Remittitur; judicial review.

In any action maintained under this section the district court, upon a prima facie showing by the plaintiff of those matters specified in subdivision 2, shall remit the parties to the state agency or instrumentality that promulgated the environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit which is the subject of the action, requiring said agency or instrumentality to institute the appropriate administrative proceedings to consider and make findings and an order on those matters specified in subdivision 2. In so remitting the parties, the court may grant temporary equitable relief where appropriate to prevent irreparable injury to the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state. In so remitting the parties, the court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of judicial review to determine whether the order of the agency is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. If plaintiff fails to establish said prima facie showing, the court shall dismiss the action and award such costs and disbursements as the court deems appropriate.

Subd. 4.Intervention.

In any action maintained under this section, 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, provided that said person makes timely application to the district court prior to the court's remittance of the action as specified in subdivision 3.

Subd. 5.Venue.

Any action maintained under this section shall be brought in the county in which is located the principal office of the state agency or instrumentality that promulgated the rule, standard, order or permit which is the subject of the action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 771 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 771 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “’ the environment under MERA,” and, alternatively, that MERA only allows for suit to be brought against a state agency under the enumerated circumstances listed under Minn.Stat. § 116B.10, subd. 1 (2008). An agency may be held liable for its inaction if the failure to act…”

Corwine v. Crow Wing Cnty., 244 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 2× “Except as otherwise provided in section 116B.10, in any administrative, licensing, or other similar pro *360 ceeding, 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…”

White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Nat. Res., 928 N.W.2d 351 (2019). · cites it 23× “03 instead of Minn. Stat. § 116B.10, (2) misapplying the public-trust doctrine, (3) denying summary judgment on the ground that respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies, (4) refusing to require joinder of affected permit holders not parties to the case, (5)…”

Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Adams, 482 F. Supp. 170 (D. Minnesota 1979). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 116B.10, subd. 1. *181 The concept of primary jurisdiction involves the question of the timing of judicial review of agency action where both a court and an agency have authority over the subject matter of the action.”

Northwoods Env't Inst. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 370 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “11 (1984), or commenced an action in district court under Minn.Stat. § 116B.10 (1984). We will not grant extraordinary relief when the ordinary and adequate remedies at law are not followed.”

Dakota Cnty. Env't Prot. Ass'n v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 322 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 8× “The Dakota County Environmental Protection Association (DCEPA) 1 sought judicial review pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 116B.10 (1980) of the findings and order of the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) granting to the Minnesota Department of…”

N. Metals, LLC v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Crow Wing Recycling, Inc.,... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” See Minn. Stat. § 116B.10. Count II alleges that Crow Wing Recycling is operating without the necessary environmental controls, in violation of MERA.”

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.