Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Holte v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 19, 1991No. C2-90-1538PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

Appellants argue that the Minnesota Grasshopper Control Act conflicts with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act and that it unconstitutionally denies them due process of law. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

In July 1989, pursuant to a grasshopper eradication program under Minn.Stat. §§ 18.0223-0227 (Supp.1989), the Minnesota Grasshopper Control Act (MGCA), appellant Wayne Buchholtz was ordered by Clay County Agricultural Inspector Lyle Schultz to spray his land. Under MGCA, if an owner who is ordered to spray land refuses to do so, the land is sprayed by the county, the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kennedy Building Associates v. Viacom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2004
  2. Kennedy Building Associates v. Viacom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API