Cited by

In re Application of N. Metro Harness, Inc., 137 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Partners in Nutrition’s Appeal, d at 233 (reviewing whether quasi -judicial denial of CACFP application was arbitrary and capricious); In re Application of N. Metro Harness, Inc., (“When an agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, an appellate court applies the substantial[-]evidence test on review.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

“The party seeking review on appeal has the burden of proving that the agency has exceeded its statutory authority.” In re Class A License Application of N. Metro Harness, Inc., (), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Turnbladh v. District Court , (holding that an administrative agency has a right to reopen, rehear, and reconsider its own determinations until jurisdiction is lost by appeal or lapse of time); In re North Metro Harness, Inc., -136 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006) (finding administrative agencies may independently move to reconsider their decisions).

In re North Metro Harness, Inc.

In re North Metro Harness, Inc., -34 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Ct., 259 Minn. 228, 236, (explaining that an agency as a “well-established right to reopen, rehear, and redetermine the matter even after a determination has been made” ); see also In re North Metro Harness, Inc., -35 (Minn. App. 2006) (recognizing the authority of the commissioner to request reconsideration by examining Minnesota statutes and case law), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Metro Harness, 12 Inc., (quotation and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

The due - process rights required are simply reasonable notice of a hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” In re North Metro Harness, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

See In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., (stating that quasi-judicial decisions are reviewed for substantial evidence, 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; or (5) t

of N. Metro Harness, Inc., d 129, 137 (Minn. App. 2006) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

of N. Metro Harness, Inc., review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

This court has recognized the principle that “an administrative agency has a well-established right to reopen, rehear, and redetermine [a] matter even after a determination has been made.” –36 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

The Termination “An agency acts in a quasi-judicial manner when the commission hears the view of opposing sides presented in the form of written and oral testimony, examines the record and makes findings of fact.” In re North Metro Harness, Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

“An agency acts in a quasi-judicial manner when [it] hears the view of opposing sides presented in the form of written and oral testimony, examines the record and makes findings of fact.” In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

We give great deference “to administrative fact-finding.” In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., d 129, 137 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

See In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., (stating “statute does not limit requests for reconsideration solely to those made by a party”), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

Therefore, Block does not bear on the precise issue before us. Additionally, Block relied on In re N. Metro Harness, Inc., review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006), for the proposition that the county had inherent authority to reconsider the issuance of the CUP.

In re Class A License Application of North Metro Harness, Inc., review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).