1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 594 N.W.2d
  5. 594 N.W.2d 233 (1999)
 

POPE COUNTY MOTHERS v. MPCA

No. CX-98-2308.

594 N.W.2d 233 (1999)

POPE COUNTY MOTHERS, et al., Respondent, v. MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, Respondent, Hancock Pro-Pork, Inc., Intervenor, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

May 25, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James Pierce Peters, Peters & Peters, PLC, Glenwood, for respondent Pope County Mothers.

Michael M. Fluegel, Fluegel, Helseth, McLaughlin, Anderson and Brutlag, Chtd., Morris, for appellant Hancock Pro-Pork, Inc.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Richard P. Cool, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, for respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, AMUNDSON, Judge, and HUSPENI, Judge.

OPINION

HUSPENI,* Judge.

On appeal from summary judgment, appellant Hancock Pro-Pork, Inc. contends the district court erred in (1) determining that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) decision not to require an EIS for proposed feedlot project was arbitrary and capricious and (2) remanding the matter to the MPCA for preparation of an EIS. Because we concur with the district court that the MPCA's decision that an...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases