McLafferty v. St. Aubin

6 Citing cases

  1. Schussler v. City of Vill. of Minnetonka Beach

    No. A20-0919 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2021)

    These rights include the right to "build and maintain, for private or public use, wharves, piers, and landings and extending into the water," and the right to use the water for "hunting, fishing, boating, sailing, [and] irrigating." McLafferty v. St. Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165, 168 (Minn. App. 1993). Here, the 1889 plat dedication specified that "The Avenues, Streets, Alleys, and Parks as shown on the annexed plat are hereby dedicated to the public for the uses contemplated therein."

  2. Sanden v. Tysdal

    No. A23-1636 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2024)

    The Tysdals cite three cases, all of which are distinguishable: Bolen v. Glass, 755 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008), Kochevar v. City of Gilbert, 141 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1966), and McLafferty v. St. Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165 (Minn.App. 1993).

  3. Carlson v. Township of Livonia

    No. A22-0020 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2022)

    These rights include the right to "build and maintain, for private or public use, wharves, piers, and landings and extending into the water," and the right to use the water for "hunting, fishing, boating, sailing, [and] irrigating." McLafferty v. St. Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165, 168 (Minn.App. 1993).

  4. United States v. Ahrendt

    No. 14-PO-149 (JRT) (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    1987). Courts have elaborated on this interpretation by categorizing riparian rights as "positive rights," which "foster[ the] use of the water for navigation, recreation, or harvest." McLafferty v. St. Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165, 168 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). In other words, Pratt stands less for the proposition that riparian rights extend to all commercial activity and more that riparian rights apply to domestic and recreational activity, and activity that is largely positive and that does not detract from the rights of other users.

  5. State v. LaFon

    No. A07-0708 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)

    Riparian rights also include the right to build and maintain wharves, piers, and landings on the riparian land that extend into the water from the property owner's land. State ex rel. Head v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 487, 185 N.W.2d 530, 532-33 (1971); State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60, 71-72, 148 N.W. 617, 622 (1914); McLafferty v. St. Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165, 168 (Minn.App. 1993). A person who owns lakeshore property has a common-law right to wharf out to the navigable portion of the lake.

  6. Beca of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas ex rel. Board of Commissioners

    607 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 29 times
    Reversing county's prohibition of all docks on shore of lake as term of conditional use permit, reasoning that condition was "severe limitation of a right generally reserved to riparian owners"

    " While not an outright denial, this amounts to a severe limitation of a right generally reserved to riparian owners. See McLafferty v. St.Aubin, 500 N.W.2d 165, 168 (Minn.App. 1993) ("Riparian rights are generally described as the rights to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of the water."). The board's decision was based solely on comments of lake residents and a letter from a DNR Fisheries Supervisor, who simply stated that any development would have an impact on aquatic life.