Cited by

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

576 citing documents.

In Re the City of Owatonna's NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance 672 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
But “[wjhere there is a combination of danger signals which suggest the agency has not taken a hard look at the salient problems and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making it is the duty of the court to intervene.” (quotation omitted).
Max Schwartzman & Sons v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 670 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Max Schwartzman & Sons v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 670 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
amental 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 Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., ().
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 667 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2003
v. Nor-West Cable Communications P’ship, (“The court will intervene, however, where there is a ‘combination of danger signals which suggest the agency has not taken a “hard look” at the salient problems’ and the decision lacks ‘articulated standards and reflective findings.’ ”) () (internal citations omitted).
McEa v. Mpca 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
McEa v. Mpca 660 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
HealthPartners, Inc. v. Bernstein 655 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
HealthPartners, Inc. v. Bernstein 655 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
amental 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 Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., ().
In Re Appeal of O'Boyle 655 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Appeal of O'Boyle 655 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The supreme court has found that “decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise.”
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation v. Department of Natural Resources 651 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation v. Department of Natural Resources 651 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc., v. County of Ramsey
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 644 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 2002
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 644 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 2002
I. “[Djecisions 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.”
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
we stated: We have consistently viewed with disfavor statutes which specify trials de novo and which attempt to confer original jurisdiction on trial courts over policy matters which are the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches.
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 624 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2001
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 624 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2001
§ 14.69 (2000), but the court must 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.” (citation omitted).
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 606 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 606 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Pope County Mothers v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 594 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Pope County Mothers v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 594 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
A reviewing court will intervene only where there is a “combination of danger signals [that] suggest the agency has not taken a ‘hard look’ at the salient problems and ‘has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.’ ” (quoting Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C.C., 444 F.2d 841 , 851 (D.C.Cir.1970)).
State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur 590 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1999
State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur 590 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1999
“[Djeference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
Peterson v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry 591 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Peterson v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry 591 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1996) (noting decision may be reversed if unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious); (defining “substantial evidence”).
Madison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 585 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Madison v. Commissioner of Public Safety 585 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding review of agency decisions by district court and appellate court limited to whether findings supported by substantial evidence and whether conclusions arbitrary or capricious).
In Re the Quantification of Environmental Costs 578 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Quantification of Environmental Costs 578 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Medical License of Friedenson 574 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Medical License of Friedenson 574 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Courts should defer to an agency’s expertise and its “special knowledge in the field of [its] technical training, education and experience.”
Drum v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 574 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Drum v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 574 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Dullard v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs.
Minnesota Department of Public Service v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 574 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1998
Matter of Interstate Power Rates Change Request 574 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1998
Matter of Interstate Power Rates Change Request 574 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1998
Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst , , 825 (Minn. 1977).
Minnesota Department of Public Service v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 574 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1998
The substantial evidence test applies, and it is met when we find “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
In Re the Alleged Labor Law Violation of Chafoulias Management Co. 572 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Alleged Labor Law Violation of Chafoulias Management Co. 572 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wagner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 569 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1997
Wagner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 569 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1997
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 567 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1997