Cited by

2 Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458, 461 , ; Linster v. Luecke, 186 Minn. 386 , .

In Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , , the petition under the statute involved the plea for a change and alteration of an alleged existing public highway which was duly presented to the board of county commissioners.

869, 1095 ; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 166 N.W.

No. 47 v. Meeker County, 143 Minn. 169 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Common School Dist.

6 See, Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , , and cases cited therein; Linster v. Luecke, 186 Minn. 386 , .

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; In re Enlargement of Independent School Dist.

Illustrative of such cases are the following: Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 461 , 166 N.W.

1913B, 785, supra; and see Hunstiger v. Kilian, supra; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Id.

See Bennett v. Beaty, 156 Minn. 293 , , and Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , .

§ 397b; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; In re Appeal of Sartell, 149 Minn. 233 , ; State ex rel.

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Fohl v. Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67 , ; St.

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Mt.

This is clearly and sufficiently demonstrated in Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , , and the cases therein referred to.

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Mahoney v. Kelley, 156 Minn. 327 , .

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 166 N.W.

No. 31, 134 Minn. 82 , ; Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , ; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Hall v. Commrs.

We.think appellant failed in this under the settled law in this state as expressed in Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Rolf v. Town of Hancock, 167 Minn. 187 , , and cases therein cited.

This objection was held not well taken; but it was suggested that the review of the courts was of the limited character permitted in the review of administrative questions, as illustrated in Brazil v. Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , 166 N.W.

Schweigert v. Abbott, 122 Minn. 383 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Sorknes v. Board, 131 Minn. 79 , ; School District v. School District, 134 Minn. 82 , ; Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439 , ; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Froehling v. Ind.

See also School District No. 40 v. Bolstad, 121 Minn. 376 , ; State v. Flaherty, 140 Minn. 19 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , .

In order to reverse the action of a legislative or administrative body of this sort, where an appeal or review by a court is provided, the only question for the court is whether the body “acted arbitrarily and in disregard of the best interests of the public, or upon an erroneous theory of the law, or whether the evidence is practically conclusive against the order.” Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Sartell v. County of Benton, 149 Minn. 233 , ; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn.

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , .

Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , Common School District No. 85 v. County of Renville, 141 Minn. 300 , .