Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 221.071 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1999 c 238 art 2 s 92]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1961–1995 · leading case: Petition of Hyman Freightways, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
Petition of Hyman Freightways, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “Public Convenience and Necessity Minn.Stat. § 221.071 (1990) lists the general criteria the Transportation Regulation Board must meet in reviewing petitions for additional authority.”
Petition of D & a Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Minn.Stat. §§ 221.071, subd. 1; .072, subd.”
Hyland v. Metro. Airport Comm'n, 884 F. Supp. 334 (D. Minnesota 1995). “See Minn.Stat. § 221.071 (1992); 49 U.S.C. § 10922 (c)(1)(A) (1993).”
Dahlen Transp., Inc. v. Hahne, 112 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. 1961). “*232 It appears to me that when the legislature included the test of public convenience and necessity in the 1957 enactment as to petroleum carriers it did so for a purpose and that the term "necessity" as used in § 221.071 contemplated a definite public need for transportation…”
Petition of Am. Freight Sys., Inc., 380 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 221.071 (1984) governs the issuance of regular route common carrier permits.”
Quinn Distrib. Co. v. Quast Transfer, Inc., 181 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. 1970). “Unless there is manifest injustice, this limitation applies even though it may appear that contrary inferences would be better supported or we would be inclined to reach a different result, were we the triers of fact.”
Mitchell Transp., Inc. v. R.R. & Warehouse Comm'n, 137 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 1965). “121 because it would improperly, and contrary to the meaning of the statute, convert contract carriers into common carriers and subject them to the *127 convenience and necessity requirements of § 221.071, an effect unsupported by legislative intent.”
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.