Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 300 N.W.2d 769.

78 citing documents.

In re Summary Investigation into Intrastate Switched Access Charges Proposed by Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. for its Minnesota … 402 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 401 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 401 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Commerce 400 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Commerce 400 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board 400 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board 400 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 375 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health 375 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The agency’s decision is presumed to be correct “out of deference to agency skill and technical expertise.” see Life Star Ambulance Systems
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 * * *.” (
Life Star Ambulance System, Inc. v. Ashton 363 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Life Star Ambulance System, Inc. v. Ashton 363 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The decision is presumed to be correct by this court “out of deference to agency skill and technical expertise....”
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
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
Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, Signal Delivery Service
Department of Natural Resources v. Todd County Hearings Unit 356 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Department of Natural Resources v. Todd County Hearings Unit 356 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching 354 N.W.2d 466 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.”
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 342 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 342 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey 323 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1982
Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey 323 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1982
774 n. 3 (1980) (dictum that reasonable use test may apply with respect to using underground waters).
Town of Grant v. Washington County 319 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1982
Town of Grant v. Washington County 319 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1982
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by