Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., 319 N.W.2d 52.

38 citing documents.

Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Inc., (an agency decision will be reversed if "unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted”); (defining "substantial evidence”).
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 determining whether these findings are supported by substantial evidence, we rely on the Minnesota interpretation of substantial evidence found in Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., : We view that by the “substantial evidence” test is meant (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.
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
(as quoted in Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., ).
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
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Matter of Hibbing Taconite Co. 431 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Matter of Hibbing Taconite Co. 431 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Co-op., Inc.
State Ex Rel. Khalifa v. Hennepin County 420 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State Ex Rel. Khalifa v. Hennepin County 420 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Petition of Fritz Trucking, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Petition of Fritz Trucking, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., (citation omitted).
Hoffman v. Gopher State Silica 404 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1987
Hoffman v. Gopher State Silica 404 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1987
Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. v. Goldberg 403 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. v. Goldberg 403 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Gutz v. Honeywell, Inc. 399 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1987
Gutz v. Honeywell, Inc. 399 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1987
In re Minnesota Power's Transfer of M.L. Hibbard Units 3 & 4 Boilers & Related Facilities to the … 399 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re Minnesota Power's Transfer of M.L. Hibbard Units 3 & 4 Boilers & Related Facilities to the … 399 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Reserve Mining, d at 825 .
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
Peoples Natural Gas, d at 351 (quoting Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Coop., Inc., ).
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
In Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., d at 825 : 1) [S]uch 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
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 370 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.
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
(quoting Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Co-Op, Inc., ): We view that by the “substantial evidence” test is meant: 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.
Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 358 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 358 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
*643 See Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.
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
STATE BY GOMEZ-BETHKE v. Eastern Air Lines 346 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
STATE BY GOMEZ-BETHKE v. Eastern Air Lines 346 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc., Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardson, 312 Mn.
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
The Minnesota interpretation of the substantial evidence test is found in Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Co-Op., Inc., : We view that by the ‘substantial evidence’ test is meant: 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.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by