Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 501.03 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1989 c 340 art 1 s 77]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2002 · leading case: Tuckner v. Twp. of May, 419 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tuckner v. Twp. of May, 419 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 37× “Washington County Shoreland Management Ordinance (WCSMO) § 501.03 prohibits the owner of two or more contiguous lots or parcels of land from considering the individual lots or parcels as separate for purposes of sale or development if the individual lot or parcel does not meet…”

State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 2× “The federal cases endorsed by the dissent are of little persuasive value, as the federal privilege is subject to more flexible application and "is not as protective of the marital relationship" as Minnesota's approach.”

State v. Lee, 480 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Thompson, Minnesota Practice § 501.03, at 168 (1979). Regardless of their confidential or noncon-fidential nature, the communications must be interspousal (made by one spouse to the other spouse).”

In Re the Variance Request of Johnson, 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “4; Washington County Shoreland Management Ordinance § 501.03. The Pattersons nevertheless twice requested variances from both Forest Lake and Washington County to build another home on Lot 6.”

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.