Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 28.08 (2026)

Length Of Storage Period

✓ current as of May 2026

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

No person, firm, or corporation shall keep or permit to remain in any cold storage warehouse any article of food which has been held in cold storage either within or without the state for a longer aggregate period than 12 months, except with the consent of the commissioner, as herein provided.

The commissioner upon written application made and presented during the 12-month period may extend the allowable storage period for any particular article of food, provided the same upon examination is found to be in proper condition for further cold storage. If the commissioner shall grant the application for such further cold storage period the commissioner shall enter an order specifying the period for which such additional storage may be permitted. The commissioner shall make written report on each case in which such extension of storage is granted, including therein the information relating to the reason for the action taken, specifying the kinds and amounts of the articles of food covered by such extension order and the length of time for which the extension is granted, and this report and the order based thereon shall be kept on file in the office of the commissioner at all times open to the public.

In case the owner of any article of food in storage in a cold storage warehouse fails or refuses to remove the same before the expiration of the period of time within which the storage may lawfully be continued, then and in such case the commissioner may sell or order the same to be sold under a procedure specified by the commissioner.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1975–2006 · leading case: Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 2× “) ("Mandamus proceedings cannot be used to interfere with the discretion of zoning authorities."); 4 Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, supra, § 64:6 (explaining that "[t]he clear legal duty to act which evokes a right to mandamus" does not arise with respect to an act…”

Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Minnesota Env't Quality Council, 237 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1975). “” 8 Respondent AMAX points out that the Stark and Abbott Laboratories cases involved statutes which were enacted prior to the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. That act, however, was not intended to alter, but rather only to codify, existing rules relating to reviewability…”

Mn. Pub. Int. Res. Grp. v. Mn. Env. QC, 237 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1975). “Davis, 4 Administrative Law Treatise, § 28.08. Stark was decided before passage of the Administrative Procedure Act, but there is nothing in Abbott Laboratories , decided 20 years later, which indicates that the passage of the act reduced the availability of judicial review.”

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.