Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808.

576 citing documents.

Neujahr v. Ramsey County Civil Service Commission 370 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Claims Against the Kern Grain Co. 369 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Claims Against the Kern Grain Co. 369 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Accompanying the statutory standards is a presumption that agency decisions are correct, “out of deference to agency skill and technical expertise * * *.” (
Downie v. Independent School District No. 141 367 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Downie v. Independent School District No. 141 367 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. 367 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. 367 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS Standard of Review Agency decisions "enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by the courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
In re 1984 Pine County Attorney Budget 366 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re 1984 Pine County Attorney Budget 366 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stensland v. County of Faribault 365 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1985
Stensland v. County of Faribault 365 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1984).
Dollander v. Rochester State Hospital 362 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dollander v. Rochester State Hospital 362 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Northern States Power Co. 360 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Northern States Power Co. 360 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Substantial evidence” has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Petition of Peoples Natural Gas Co. 358 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Petition of Peoples Natural Gas Co. 358 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Agency decisions “enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by the courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 358 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 358 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees 358 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1984
Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees 358 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1984
1018, 1026 , 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); Minnesota Power & (“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” [Minn.1977]).
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 358 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 358 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Accompanying the statutory standards is a presumption that agency decisions are correct, “out of deference to agency skill and technical expertise * * *.” (); see also Minnesota Power &amp
Conagra, Inc. v. Swanson 356 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Conagra, Inc. v. Swanson 356 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
see Taylor v. Beltrami Elec.
Pearson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 381 356 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Pearson v. SCH. BD. OF IND. SCH. DIST. 381 356 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Pearson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 381 356 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
accord Kroll v. Independent School District No. 598
Pearson v. SCH. BD. OF IND. SCH. DIST. 381 356 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
accord Kroll v. Independent School District No. 593
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources 356 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of St. Paul v. Harding 356 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of St. Paul v. Harding 356 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
James v. Commissioner of Economic Security 354 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Brinks, Inc. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 355 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
James v. Commissioner of Economic Security 354 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court said: [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.
Brinks, Inc. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 355 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[Djecisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by the courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education and experience.”
State ex rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 354 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State ex rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 354 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching 354 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Antl v. State, Department of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Antl v. State, Department of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching 354 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness “and will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or when the findings are arbitrary and capricious or are unsupported by substantial evidence.”
First National Bank of Long Prairie v. Department of Commerce 350 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1984
First National Bank of Long Prairie v. Department of Commerce 350 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1984
If an administrative agency properly carries out its function of reasoned decisionmaking, a reviewing court “should exercise restraint and affirm, even if it might have reached a different conclusion had it been the factfinder or policymaker.”
Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984