Cited by

“Although an appellate court is ordinarily limited to a consideration of matters contained in th e record before it, we think it has inherent power to look beyond the record where the orderly administration of justice commends it.” Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. Koochiching County

31, 1997)) , rev’d and remanded on other grounds, (PolyMet II); see also Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching , (considering extra - record evidence in appeal from declaratory judgment action in district co urt based on “inherent power to look beyond the record where the orderly administration of justice commends it”).

v. U-Haul Co. of Minn ., (quoting Crystal Beach Ba y Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, ); see also United Power Ass’n v. Comm’r of Revenue, n.3 (Minn. 1992) (taking judicial notice of an MPCA permit “as a matter of public record”).

See Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, 309 Minn. 52, 56-57

of Koochiching, 4 309 Minn. 52, 55, (quotation omitted).

of Koochiching, 309 Minn. 52, 55, (quotation omitted).

But we have taken judicial notice of public records and have said we have the “inherent power to look beyond the record where the orderly administration of justice commends it.” Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, 309 Minn. 52, 56-57 , see also United Power Ass’n v. Comm’r of Revenue, , 77 n. 3 (Minn.1992) (taking judicial notice of a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit as a matter of public record).

See Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, 309 Minn. 52, 55 , (“[A] prima facie case of arbitrariness exists if the county board’s decision is not accompanied by findings to show that its action ‘was reached upon a consideration of the facts and was based upon reason rather than the mere individual whim of the ...

Cf. Crystal Beach Bay Ass’n v. County of Koochiching, 309 Minn. 52, 55 , (concluding that even where findings are required a prima facie case of arbitrariness “may be rebutted if there is evidence in the recorded hearing testimony from which the reviewing court can ascertain a reasonable basis for the county board’s action”).

(holding that when allegedly inadmissible evidence has been admitted without objection, a party may not question its admissibility for the first time on appeal), review denied (Minn. July 12, 1989); see also Crystal Beach Bay Ass'n v. Koochiching County, 309 Minn. 52, 56-57 , (relying on agency report issued after county zoning decision and after trial court’s review of that decision to uphold the granting of conditional use permit because an appellate court "has inherent power to look beyond th

However, an appellate court has the inherent power to look beyond the lower court record “where the orderly administration of justice commends it.” Crystal Beach Bay Assn. v. Koochiching County, 309 Minn. 52, 57

In Crystal Beach Bay Association v. Koochiching County, 309 Minn. 52 , the Supreme Court held that the county planning commission’s failure to file a mandatory “preliminary report” was not fatal to its issuance of a conditional use permit where there were other safeguards, including the approval of the Department of Natural Resources, to ensure that necessary fact

*584 In Crystal Beach Bay Assn. v. Koochiching County, Minn., we went outside the record of proceedings of the county board to uphold the granting of a conditional-use permit.