Cited by

Were that the case, the supreme court reasoned, “then almost every administrative decision is ‘quasi-judicial’ even though few such decisions adjudicate any right or 6 Note the distinction between “administrative decisions” and “administrative acts.” See Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 337, (explaining that “a particular act may be administrative for the purpose of deciding which branch of the government it comes under but judicial for the purpose of allowing review by certiorari”).

See Sellin *539 v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 337 , (explaining that “a particular act may contain certain elements of what is ordinarily considered a judicial function and yet constitute primarily a function which may not be exercised by the judicial branch of the government”).

Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 339 , (stating that on certiorari, a court cannot try a matter de novo); State ex.

(certiorari is issued by a court to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions); Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 337 , (a particular act may be administrative for the' purpose of deciding which branch of the government it comes under, but judicial for the purpose of allowing review by certiorari).

No. 11, Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 337-38

Paul, 235 Minn. 56 , Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , State ex rel.

See Honn, d at 414 (certiorari is proper “to redress obvious defects of justice for which no ordinary remedy is available”); Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 339 , (courts’ jurisdiction under certiorari is limited to review of the jurisdiction of the agency below, the regularity of its proceedings, and whether the decision below was arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, fraudulent or made under an erroneous theory of law or without any evidence to s

See Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 338

No. 11, Lindgren v. City of Crystal, 295 Minn. 557 , and Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , to dismiss this action.

Selling v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 339

See, e.g., Morey v. School Board of Independent School District No. 492, 268 Minn. 110 , Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , Johnson v. Village of Cohasset, 263 Minn. 425

Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333

Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , State ex rel.

Lund v. City of Bemidji, 209 Minn. 91 , ; Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 .

With respect to the scope of review afforded in such proceedings, see Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 , where we said that the removal of a municipal employee by an administrative agency is an administrative function, although performed in a judicial manner, and that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency if the administrative function is nonjudicial.

Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 , 2 Our reason for directing findings in Morey v. School Board of Independent School Dist.

2, provides in part: “* * * The question to be determined by the court shall be: ‘Was *534 the order of the personnel board reasonably supported by the evidence?’ ” In Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 339 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67, 72 , an action in which a former civil service employee sought reinstatement, the district court tried the case de novo without regard to prior proceedings before the civil service board, making independent findings of fact.

Anoka County Airport Protest Committee v. M. A. C. 248 Minn. 134 , 78 N. W. (2d) 722 ; Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 ; Dept. of Employment Security v. Minnesota Drug Products, Inc. 258 Minn. 133 , 104 N. W. (2d) 640 ; Vicker v. Starkey, 265 Minn. 464 , 122 N. W. (2d) 169 , 97 A. L. R. (2d) 745.

O’Connell v. Canfield, 166 Minn. 414 , ; Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 .

No. 492, 268 Minn. 110 , 128 N. W. (2d) 302 , and in Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 , that making findings of fact is the obligation of the administrative body and is not a function to be performed by the court in the first instance.

Ging v. Board of Education, 213 Minn. 550, 571 , 7 N. W. (2d) 544, 556 ; Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 339, 340 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67, 71, 72 .

3 Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) 67 ; State ex rel.

In any event it is our opinion that the cases of Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , , and Johnson v. Village of Cohasset [ 263 Minn. 425 , 116 N. W. (2d) 692 ], supra, required the Board to make findings of fact upon which their decision was based.

Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333 , 80 N. W. (2d) *432 67.