Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 6.11 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 16A.46]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1989–2012 · leading case: In re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 702 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
In re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 702 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “, Administrative Law Treatise § 6.11 (4th ed.2002) (observing that, when separate agencies promulgate and enforce regulations, deference to the enforcing agency improperly allows inconsistent interpretation of regulations).”
Koller v. Hoffmann (In re Hoffmann), 475 B.R. 692 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2012). “Section 6.11 allows the beneficiaries to terminate the trust with 30 days written notice returning the res to the beneficiaries.”
Smith v. City of Owatonna, 439 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “* * * No action lies when a state capitol or a college is moved away, when water pipes in the street are removed, or when a railroad or canal is *40 discontinued, provided the change is made by authority of law.”
In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 866 F. Supp. 406 (D. Minn. 1994). “at 960 n. 90. The Defendants also cite Garza v.”
Neve Bros. v. Potash Corp., 866 F. Supp. 406 (D. Minn. 1994). “In the article, the authors, all of whom assisted in drafting § 1367, state that "the legislative history was an attempt to correct [Congress'] oversight" in failing to include Rule 23 as an exception to supplemental jurisdiction in § 1367(b). Id. at 960 n. 90. The Defendants…”
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.