City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota, A14-16

LPOE, owned by Carlson, operates at 120 East Superior Street (Last Place on Earth) selling synthetic drugs; city served notice of public nuisance under Minn. Stat. §617.81 and later filed nuisance action after a 30-day abatement period.
In 2011 a state law banning certain synthetic drugs reduced competition, but LPOE’s business flourished, causing community problems.
March 2013 controlled buys yielded products testing positive for controlled substances; May 7, 2013 notice cited ongoing nuisance and misbranding.
June 19, 2013 the city filed a second public-nuisance action seeking temporary and permanent relief; July 9 a temporary injunction was sought; July 19 a TRO was issued; a permanent injunction followed after trial.
The district court held the nuisance existed under Minn. Stat. § 617.81 and granted permanent injunctions under both statutory and common-law theories; Carlson and LPOE challenged these rulings.
Appellants contend the 30-day abatement period foreclosed nuisance action and argue constitutional concerns under the city’s synthetic-drug ordinance, which the district court did not decide for the common-law claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-abatement cause to believe nuisance exists supports filing	Carlson argues no nuisance after 30 days unless ongoing	City contends statute allows action if cause to believe nuisance exists after abatement	Yes; district court did not clearly err on cause-to-believe finding after abatement
Whether the nuisance exists under Minn. Stat. §617.81(2)(a)(v) supports permanent injunction	LPOE argues no nuisance under the cited provisions	City asserts nuisance exists under multiple provisions; one suffices for injunction	Yes; the district court properly found a public nuisance and issued the injunction under §617.83
Whether to decide constitutional challenge to the synthetic-drug ordinance	Constitutional challenge should be resolved	Open violation would not affect outcome; district court relied on common-law nuisance	Not decided; common-law nuisance would remain regardless of constitutional challenge
Whether the injunctions can rest on common-law nuisance even if ordinance unconstitutional	Common-law basis alone suffices	Constitutionality not necessary to decide; injunction stands on common-law nuisance	Affirmed on common-law grounds; constitutional question not reached

City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Co-op Ass’n, 830 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 2013) (statutory interpretation and notice/abatement framework under public-nuisance statute)
City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 768 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 2009) (abatement period effect on nuisance action; plain-language interpretation)
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013) (appellate review of district court’s factual findings for clear error)
Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1999) (statutory construction principles; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001) (statutory construction; common usage governs unless ambiguous)