Cited by

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.”

ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review “[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.”

Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst

Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst

t he commissioner defined “substantial evidence” as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion .” The commissioner also cited Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , and Hennepin Cty.

Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst

v. Nor-West Cable Commc’ns P’ship, (d 808, 825 (Minn. 1977)).

“[T]he burden is upon the appellant to establish that the findings of the agency are not supported by the evidence in the record, considered in its entirety.” ().

“[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.”

DECISION “[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.”

We may reverse or modify the decision of an administrative proceeding, however, if the findings, inferences, or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, or are “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e)-(f) (2014); (holding the agency decision must be “lawful and reasonable”).

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.”

d 808, 824-25 (Minn. 1977).

City of Arden Hills, the supreme court explained an appellate court’s scope of review in zoning matters as follows: Although earlier decisions may have left some doubt with regard to the appropriate scope of review in such cases, no doubt can remain in the wake of this court’s d 808, 822 (Minn. 1977).

When reviewing an agency decision, appellate courts will “adhere to the 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.”

But we also recognize the “need for exercising judicial restraint and for restricting judicial functions to a narrow area of responsibility lest [the court] substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”

“[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.”

We have recognized 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.”

No. 646, 300 Minn. 478, 478 , (stating that courts cannot exercise original jurisdiction over “policy matters which are the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches”).

“[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.”