Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808.
- A Resolution Reaffirming the Issuance of a Cannabis Retail Registration to Jigar Patel, DBA Nature Creation. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In re the Final NPDES/SDS Permit for 3M Cottage Grove Center. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Approving the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision for Archer Datacenters Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Negative … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of the Complaint of Troy Scheffler Regarding Representative Joshua Heintzeman and the Committee to Elect … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of the Denial of the Application of Kathleen Smith for MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of the Denial of the Application of Kathleen Smith for MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of a Petition for Determination of an Appropriate Unit and Certification as Exclusive Representative. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed …
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 On review, “decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness” and deference is shown “to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field[s] of their technical training, education, and experience.”
- In the Matter of the Formal Complaint and Request for Relief by the Minnesota Solar Advocates. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
St. Paul Federation of Educators, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 808, 825 (Minn. 1977).
- In the Matter of the Appeal of the Discharge of M.W. from the Minnesota Veterans Home - Minneapolis. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
In the Matter of Citizen Petition for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed Summit Avenue …
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[D]ecisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field[s] of their technical training, education, and experience.”
- Record of Decision for the Hamline Midway Library EAW Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Record of Decision for the Hamline Midway Library EAW
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quotation omitted); -47 (Minn. 2023).
- In the Appeal of Maren Erickson for Maltreatment of a Minor Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- In the Appeal of Maren Erickson for Maltreatment of a Minor Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
- Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
-
Complaint Decision File 23-010C on behalf of D.V.G. from South Washington County Schools 0833-01.
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quotation omitted).13 An agency also cannot issue an arbitrary quasi-judicial decision.
- In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeals by Trinity Home Health Care Services and … Minn. 2023
- In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeals by Trinity Home Health Care Services and … Minn. 2023
-
A19-0118 A19-0124 A20-1271 A20-1380 A20-1385
Minn. 2023
In applying the arbitrary or capricious standard, we consider whether “a combination of danger signals” suggests that “the agency has not taken a ‘hard look’ at the salient problems and ‘has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision- making.’ ” (quoting Greater Bos.
-
In the Matter of the Decision on the Petition Requesting the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for …
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 808, 825 (Minn. 1977)).
- East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Inc., et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
Jacob Robuck, et al., Relators,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Substantial evidence” means “1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2) more than a scintilla of evidence; 3) more than ‘some evidence’; 4) more than ‘any evidence’; and 5) evidence considered in its entirety.” 5 On appeal, the relator bears the burden to demonstrate that the agency’s findings are unsupported by the record when considered in its entirety.
- In re the Matter of: Talea Glesener, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- In the Matter of: Gedney Foods Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Border to Border … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
In the Matter of Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota Kittson, Marshall, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Clearwater, …
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Our role when reviewing agency action is to determine whether the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the problems involved, and whether it has ‘g enuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.’” CARD, d at 832 ().
-
A20-1418
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Comm’rs, 32 (Minn. 2006) (CARD) ().
-
In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Nolte Family …
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Our role when re viewing agency action is to determine whether the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the problems involved, and whether it has ‘genuinely engaged in r easoned decision-making.’” CARD, d at 832 ().
-
A18-1953 A18-1958 A18-1959 A18-1960 A18-1961
Minn. 2021
Cable Commc’ns Bd., d at 668 ( (M inn.
- A20-0947 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal of Community Involvement Programs-FSE.
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Agency decisions are presumptive ly valid, and “deference should be shown by [appellate] courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education and experience.” d 808, 824 (Minn. 1977).
-
A19-0134
Minn. 2021
See Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , −27 (Minn. 1977); Minn. Stat. § 14.69.
- In the Matter of Alan Joshua Woggon, D.C. License No. 6076. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
In re the Matter of St. Paul Area Electrical JATC Registered Apprenticeship Program and Damon Doss.
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When reviewing agency decisions, this court follows “the fundamental concept that decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be s hown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
-
A18-2095 A18-2159 A18-2163
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our responsibility in determining whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency decision is “to examine the evidence on which [the] conclusions are based and determine whether they are well founded.” Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst
-
In re the Matter of: James Steinbach, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We need not give any deference to the district court’s decision,” In re O’Boyle, but we defer to agency decisions as they “enj oy a presumption of correctness,”
- In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. 930 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd.
930 N.W.2d 12
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 832 (quoting Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , , 825 (Minn. 1977) ).
- A18-1291 A18-1292 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- , A18-1524, A18-1608 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- In re RS Eden/Eden House 928 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2019
-
In re RS Eden/Eden House
928 N.W.2d 326
Minn. 2019
Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , , 824 (Minn. 1977).
- White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res.
928 N.W.2d 351
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , , 824 (Minn. 1977) (stating that it is a "fundamental concept that decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies' expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience").
-
In re the Matter of the Maltreatment Appeal of Watta Yanor Kamara.
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[D]ecisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
-
J. Paul Robinson, Relator,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Substantial evidence” means “1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2) more than a scintilla of evidence; 3) more than some evidence; 4) more than any evidence; and 5) evidence considered in its en tirety.” (quotations omitted).
-
In the Matter of Sharon Beth Johnson, APRN-CNP, RN RN License No. 197878-8 APRN License No. 3516.
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “[D]ecisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field[s] of their technical training, education, and experience.”