Cited by

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

576 citing documents.

Myers v. City of Oakdale 461 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This court must “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.”
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 459 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1990
In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility 459 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1990
In Re Northern States Power Company (Nsp) Wilmarth Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility 459 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1990
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 459 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1990
In Re Amendment No. 4 to Air Emission Facility Permit No. 202I-85-OT-1 454 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1990
In Re Amendment No. 4 to Air Emission Facility Permit No. 202I-85-OT-1 454 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1990
In re an Investigation of Unfair Election Practice Objections 451 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re an Investigation of Unfair Election Practice Objections 451 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re Amendment No. 4 to Air Emission Facility Permit No. 2021-85-OT-1 450 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Medcenters Health Care, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Medcenters Health Care, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In re Amendment No. 4 to Air Emission Facility Permit No. 2021-85-OT-1 450 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(quoting Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 444 F.2d 841 , 851 (D.C.Cir.1970), cer t. denied 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct.
Lakeland Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Engle 450 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lakeland Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Engle 450 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“Substantial evidence” is defined as: “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.”
St. Paul Companies, Inc. v. Hatch 449 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1989
St. Paul Companies, Inc. v. Hatch 449 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1989
this court stated: “[Djeference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.” Id.
Schoen v. County of St. Louis 448 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schoen v. County of St. Louis 448 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Sentry Insurance Payback Program Filing 447 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Sentry Insurance Payback Program Filing 447 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Joint Petition of Space Center Transport 444 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Joint Petition of Space Center Transport 444 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In re the Registration of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Ltd. Partnership 445 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In re the Registration of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Ltd. Partnership 445 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Glencoe Area Health Center v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 441 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Glencoe Area Health Center v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 441 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Further, an agency’s decision enjoys a “presumption of correctness.”
In Re Occupational License of Hutchinson 440 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Occupational License of Hutchinson 440 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 868, 872 (1st Cir.1985).
Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board 437 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board 437 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Real Estate Salesperson's License of Perron 437 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Real Estate Salesperson's License of Perron 437 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
An agency’s decision is accorded a “presumption of correctness.”
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion * * *.”
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We said, , (Minn.1977), “[I]t 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.” Id.
M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander 433 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander 433 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Petition of Murphy Motor Freight Lines 428 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Quast Transfer, Inc. v. Minnesota Transportation Regulation Board 428 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Quast Transfer, Inc. v. Minnesota Transportation Regulation Board 428 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
We presume those decisions are correct because of “the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
Petition of Murphy Motor Freight Lines 428 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS Scope of Review First of all, we must presume the Board’s decision is correct and we are required to defer to “the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, education, and experience.”
St. Otto's Home v. Department of Human Services 425 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
St. Otto's Home v. Department of Human Services 425 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The agency’s decision is accorded a “presumption of correctness.” (“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 Occupational License of Haymes 427 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re the Occupational License of Haymes 427 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Department of Human Rights Ex Rel. Cooper v. Spiten 424 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988