Upon proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a permanent injunction and enter an order of abatement, except as otherwise provided by section 617.85. The permanent injunction must describe the conduct permanently enjoined. The order of abatement must direct the closing of the building or a portion of it for one year, except as otherwise provided in section 617.84 or 617.85, unless sooner released pursuant to section 617.87. Before an abatement order is enforced against a building or portion of it, the owner must be served with the abatement order and a notice of the right to file a motion under section 617.85 in the same manner that a summons is served under the Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the abatement order shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the building or affected portion.
Notes of Decisions
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 24× “" Minn.Stat. § 617.83 (2006). As with a temporary injunction, a permanent injunction "must describe the conduct permanently enjoined.”
Hvamstad v. Suhler, 727 F. Supp. 511 (D. Minnesota 1989).
· cites it 6× “82 or a permanent injunction or order of abatement under section 617.83, the provisions of section 617.”
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 768 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a permanent injunction and enter an order of abatement,” Minn.Stat. § 617.83 (2008), provided that all the substantive and procedural requirements have been met and the elements constituting the nuisance have been established by clear and…”
City of Minneapolis v. Fisher, 504 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Pursuant to the abatement provision of Minn.Stat. § 617.83, the court ordered the portion of the building containing Yoshi-ko’s closed for one year.”
City of St. Paul v. Spencer, 497 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 617.83 (1990). The order of abatement must direct the closing of the building or a portion of it for one year, subject to certain exceptions.”
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “The district court granted the city’s motion for a temporary injunction and, following a court trial, issued a permanent injunction against the property under Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2012), on two distinct grounds, and against Carlson and LPOE under public nuisance common law.”
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.