Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 307. PRIVATE CEMETERIES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 307.01 (2026)

Plat And Record

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any private person and any religious corporation may establish a cemetery on the person's or corporation's own land in the following manner: The land shall be surveyed and a plat thereof made. A stone or other monument shall be established to mark one corner of such cemetery, and its location shall be designated on the plat. The plat and the correctness thereof shall be certified by the surveyor, whose certificate shall be endorsed thereon, and with such endorsement shall be filed for record with the county recorder in the county where the cemetery is located, showing the area and location of the cemetery. Any person or association owning such private cemetery may subdivide or rearrange the same, from time to time, as may be necessary in the conduct of the business, but no plat of such subdivision or rearrangement shall interfere with the rights and privileges of the several lot owners of such cemetery without their consent, nor need same be filed in the office of the county recorder; provided, that a plat of the same shall be kept for public inspection at such cemetery; and, provided, further, that there shall be placed at the corner of each lot of such subdivision or rearrangement cement or other nondestructible markers three inches or more in diameter and eight inches or more in length, one of such markers showing the number of the lot.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Picha v. Cnty. of McLeod, 634 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Picha v. Cnty. of McLeod, 634 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “By writ of certiorari, relator-landowner appeals respondent-county’s decision to deny his application for a conditional use permit, asserting that the denial is arbitrary and capricious because the county failed to make adequate findings, the county had no legally sufficient…”
Steelmantown Church; Edward Bixby; Loving Earth Mem'l Gardens, LLC; & Matthew Connell v. Carlton Cnty., Minnesota; Sarah Plante Buhs, in her Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Comm'r; Marv Bodie, in his Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Comm'r; Thomas R. Proulx, in his Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Comm'r; Susan Zmyslony, in her Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Comm'r; Dan Reed, in his Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Comm'r; Kristine Basilici, in her Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Recorder of the Carlton Cnty. Recorder’s Off.; & Chris Berg, in his Off. capacity as Carlton Cnty. Zoning & (D. Minn. 2026). · cites it 89× “” Minn. Stat. § 307.01 (emphasis added). As such, Steelmantown—which “believes [it is] and identifies itself as a religious corporation,” ECF No.”
Mary Nesgoda, Relator, vs. Cnty. of Le Sueur, et al., Respondents (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 24× “Because we conclude that the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 307.01 (2024) permits relator to establish a private cemetery, we reverse and remand.”
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.