Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 8. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 8.04 (2026)

Public Lands

✓ 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

The attorney general shall begin and prosecute actions against all persons claiming to own any portion of the school or other public lands adversely to the state, whenever, in the attorney general's opinion, an action can be sustained, and shall cause an appearance to be entered for the state on learning of any application to preempt any such land. In case of any such application the attorney general may require the county attorney of the county in which the same is made to enter such appearance, and may cause witnesses to be subpoenaed, and take such other measures in the premises as the public interests may require.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1966–2015 · leading case: St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul, 289 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. Paul, 289 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 2× “Paul City Charter [3] grants the people "the right to propose ordinances, to require ordinances to be submitted to a vote, and to recall elective officials by processes known respectively as initiative, referendum, and recall.”
Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, 712 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D. Minn. 2010). “Chisum, Chi-sum on Patents § 8.04[3] (2010) (“Under Swinehart’s analysis, functional language is not per se objectionable in claims.”
Miller v. Raaen, 139 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 1966). “See, also, Louisell & Williams, Trial of Medical Malpractice Cases, § 8.04. In the ordinary case the standard applied involves scientific knowledge that must be defined by expert medical witnesses.”
Hoffman v. Naslund, 144 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1966). “1916D, 644; Louisell & Williams, Trial of Medical Malpractice Cases, § 8.04. Usually this standard of medical practice must be testified to and defined by expert medical witnesses.”
Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Minn. 2009). “Chisum, Chiswrn on Patents § 8.04 (2009). Functional language that results in such overly broad or indefinite claims would result in the claim’s invalidity for failing to meet the requirements of § 112, ¶¶ 1-2.”
Fritz v. Parke Davis & Co., 152 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 1967). “) § 7488; Louisell & Williams, Trial of Medical Malpractice Cases, § 8.04. 3 Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N.”
Jeffrey A. August v. Chisago Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 868 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 8.04, subd. C. In addition to the CUP requirements, rural retail tourism uses must remain “small-scale and low-impact.”
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.