Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 116B.12 (2026)

Rights And Remedies Nonexclusive

✓ current as of May 2026

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

No existing civil or criminal remedy for any wrongful action shall be excluded or impaired by sections 116B.01 to 116B.13. The rights and remedies provided herein shall be in addition to any administrative, regulatory, statutory, or common law rights and remedies now or hereafter available.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 711 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 711 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “” Minn.Stat. § 116B.12 (2002). Appellant argues that the availability of alternative administrative processes, specifically the drainage procedures laid out in Minn.”

State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 799 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The district court summarized Swan Lake I by quoting the opinion’s holding: “In light of the broad language of Minn. Stat. § 116B.12, we conclude that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over [the association’s] MERA claim regardless of the administrative…”

State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Rec. Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 116B.12 (2002). Furthermore, there is no basis for estoppel of claims or issues because the administrative proceedings did not involve hearings or agencies acting in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities.”

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 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 116B.12 (2008). Under the plain language of MERA, a district court may exercise jurisdiction over the DNR whether or not it has been granted specific authority to set the water levels of lakes.”

Zander v. State, 703 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “First, BWSR’s decision approving the wetland-replacement plan, affirmed by this court, was an administrative process in which BWSR was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.”

Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 474 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 116B.12 (1988) (MERA remedies are in addition to other existing remedies).”

White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Nat. Res., 928 N.W.2d 351 (2019). · cites it 4× “We concluded that, under Minn. Stat. § 116B.12, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the MERA claim, regardless of the administrative processes and remedies available under the drainage code provisions.”

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.