Cited by

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

576 citing documents.

MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
MINN. VIKINGS FOOTBALL CLUB v. Metro. Council 289 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1979
The Court is aware of the rule announced in the case of Reserve Mining v. Herbst, Minn., , on appeal, the Supreme Court may make an independent review of all of the actions of the Council and Commission upon the record of all of the evidence herein as to the propriety and legality of the actions taken by the Council and Commission.
Brunner v. State Department of Public Welfare 285 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
Brunner v. State Department of Public Welfare 285 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1979
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1979
Louis Park, 266 Minn. 46 , [1963], and Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 345 , [1976]), no doubt can remain in the wake of this court’s
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass'n v. State 279 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
Sterling Investment, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce, Securities Division 278 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1979
Sterling Investment, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce, Securities Division 278 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1979
On appeal to this court, however, we recognize: “ * * * that it is our function to make an independent examination of an administrative agency’s record and decision and arrive at our own conclusions as to the propriety of that determination without according any special deference to the same review conducted by the trial court.”
Minnesota Loan & Thrift Co. v. Commerce Commission, Department of Commerce 278 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1979
Minnesota Loan & Thrift Co. v. Commerce Commission, Department of Commerce 278 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1979
Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn.
Hennepin County Court Employees Group v. Public Employment Relations Board 274 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1979
Hennepin County Court Employees Group v. Public Employment Relations Board 274 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1979
15.0425 and Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn.
Arvig Telephone Co. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 270 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1978
Arvig Telephone Co. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 270 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1978
See, Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn.
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 267 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1978
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 267 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1978
The chronology of those proceedings is set forth in detail in Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (8 Cir. 1975)
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
People for Environmental Enlightenment & Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 266 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1978
In County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188 , , we noted that although the state’s past encouragement of highway construction resulted in the elimination or impairment of natural resources, “remaining resources will not be destroyed so indiscriminately because the law has been drastically changed by [MERA].” Similarly, in Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn., we recognized the state’s “strongly held commitment * * * to protecting the air, water, wildlife, and forests from further impairme
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
Amdahl v. County of Fillmore 258 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1977
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
Moreover, as this court noted in Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn., “We are of the opinion that in reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies this court performs essentially the same function as the district court and is governed by the same scope of review.
Amdahl v. County of Fillmore 258 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1977
713, 716 .” Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, Minn.
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod & Gun Club 257 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 1977
.In our most recent environmental case, Reserve Mining Company v. Herbst, Minn., we distinguished between the standard of review where a district court has served as an appellate tribunal with respect to an administrative agency decision and the deference to be accorded to a district court which has acted as finder of fact.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by