Cited by

“Decisions by local government bodies are generally legislative rather than judicial in nature, and are not subject to immediate appellate review.” Dead Lake Ass’n

“[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties.” Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County

district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter because [respondent neighbors] failed to first seek relief from Otter Tail County, who had issued the Grade and Fill Permit at issue.” “[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties.” Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County

A party may raise a question of subject- matter jurisdiction “at any time.” Dead Lake Ass’n, d 129, 134 (Minn. 2005).

A party may raise a question about subject-matter jurisdiction “at any time.” Dead Lake Ass’n

See Dead Lake Ass’n, (stating that “lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time .

Jurisdiction “is a threshold question” that “may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court.” Dead Lake Ass’n, Inc. v. Otter Tail C ounty

Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County, -35 (Minn. 2005).

I. Standard of Review Certiorari review of a city council’s deci sion is “confined to questions affecting whether the order or determination in a pa rticular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theo ry of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dead Lake Ass’n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County , (quotation omitted).

135 n.10 (Minn. 2005) (noting that judgment from court without subject-matter jurisdiction has no res judicata effect).

See Dead Lake Ass’n, (describing the court of appeals’ jurisdiction as presenting a “threshold question”).

See Dead Lake Ass’n, -35 (Minn.2005).

See Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail Cty.

Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail Cnty., (stating that a legislative decision of a governing board is reviewed through a declaratory judgment action).

See Dead Lake Ass’n, (holding that “lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties”).

See Dead Lake Ass’n, (stating that "certiorari is an extraordinary remedy intended only for review of quasi-judicial decisions” (emphasis added)).

2 See Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail Cnty., (explaining that this court has “developed a body of case law treating the writ of certiorari as an extraordinary remedy that allows appellate review” of quasi-judicial decisions); (“Where no right of discretionary review has been provided by statute or ap

Because subject-matter jurisdiction is a fundamental question that determines the right of a court to adjudicate a particular matter, “it may not be conferred on the court by agreement of the parties nor by their waiver of the right to object.” Dead Lake Ass’n, (quoting 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice-Civil Rules Ann. § 12.17 (4th ed. 2002)).

Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail County, (explaining that the decision to grant a zoning variance or special use permit is quasi-judicial because “the zoning authority is applying specific use standards set by the zoning ordinance to a particular individual use”).

Parties wishing to challenge legislative decisions by local governmental bodies “must first litigate the question of their validity in district court.” Dead Lake Ass’n