Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 609.74 (2026)
Public Nuisance
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; or
(2) interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or
(3) is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). “Minn.Stat. § 609.74 (2006). Proof that this condition is maintained is proof that the nuisance exists, thus permitting the prosecutor to seek an injunction as stated in section 617.”
State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2007). “Rudnick appeal their convictions under Minn.Stat. § 609.74(1) (2006) (the state public nuisance statute) and Anoka, Minn.”
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 768 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 2009). “2(a)(3), references "maintaining a public nuisance in violation, of section 609.74, clause (1) or (3),” which in turn provides that a person is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor, if the person intentionally "maintains or permits a condition which…”
Jake's, Ltd., Inc. Richard J. Jacobson v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2002). “, Minn.Stat. § 609.74(1) (defining public nuisance as a condition which “endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public”).”
State v. Byman, 410 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “FACTS Appellant Floyd Byman was charged by complaint with violations of Wheaton City Ordinances prohibiting maintenance of a junk yard and the Minnesota public nuisance statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.74 (1986). Counts I and II of the complaint involved property described in the…”
North Star Legal Found. v. Honeywell Proj., 355 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “See Minn.Stat. § 609.74 (1982). Private persons may not bring a cause of action for public nuisance unless they allege some special or peculiar injury.”
Greiner v. City of Champlin, 27 F.3d 1346 (8th Cir. 1994). “The officers were there on a second call for a loud party at almost 2:00 a.m., and themselves heard loud talking, giving them probable cause to arrest the homeowners for maintaining a public nuisance.”
United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F. Supp. 11 (D. Minnesota 1974). “According to Minnesota statutes, any conduct which “unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public” is a public nuisance.”
Myers v. Becker Cnty., 833 F. Supp. 1424 (D. Minnesota 1993). “Minn.Stat. § 609.74. The Advisory Committee Comment explains that the word “intentionally” was added to “eliminate those eases where there is a good faith claim on the part of the defendant that he has a right to continue with the activity in which he is engaged.”
State v. Dahl, 676 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “1 (2002) for operating a sign with messages changing more than every 15 minutes, and four counts of violating Minn.Stat. § 609.74, subd. 2 (2000), for operating a sign that caused a distraction that endangered or harmed passing motorists.”
Reserve Mining Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975). “07 — and the state’s public nuisance law which is formulated at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 609.74(1). 380 F.Supp. at 17.”
Duck Ex Rel. Duck v. Modern Roadways, Inc., 253 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. 1977). “14, while at the same time refusing to allow an instruction requested by plaintiffs which would have permitted the jury to find that defendant negligently obstructed a public highway in violation of § 609.74; and (3) to deny a new trial because of the jury’s assessment of…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1) — 4 cases
State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2007). “Rudnick appeal their convictions under Minn.Stat. § 609.74(1) (2006) (the state public nuisance statute) and Anoka, Minn.”
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). “Minn.Stat. § 609.74 (2006). Proof that this condition is maintained is proof that the nuisance exists, thus permitting the prosecutor to seek an injunction as stated in section 617.”
Jake's, Ltd., Inc. Richard J. Jacobson v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2002). “, Minn.Stat. § 609.74(1) (defining public nuisance as a condition which “endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public”).”
Reserve Mining Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975). “07 — and the state’s public nuisance law which is formulated at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 609.74(1). 380 F.Supp. at 17.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.74(2) — 1 case
State v. Davis, 375 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
— Minn. Stat. § 609.74(3) — 1 case
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). “Minn.Stat. § 609.74 (2006). Proof that this condition is maintained is proof that the nuisance exists, thus permitting the prosecutor to seek an injunction as stated in section 617.”
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.