Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co., 764 N.W.2d 34.

32 citing documents.

A25-1243 A25-1281 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
USS Big Lake 1 LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he filed rate doctrine bars claims for money damages to remedy breach of a provision in an 7 agency-approved tariff.”
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moline Machinery, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Duluth, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-43 (Minn. 2009) (explaining that the filed-rate doctrine applies to challenges that require courts to evaluate the reasonableness of the rate the MPUC has established for a utility and that the doctrine may 17 That we afford judicial deference in this regard d
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Minn. 2021
Rather than remand to the court of appeals, we address this question in “the interests of judicial economy.”
Madison Equities, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An interlocutory appeal is permitted for review of an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject -matter juris diction.
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
–29 (Minn. 2012) (addressing three separate grounds not reached by the court of appeals because “the relevant questions have been briefed by the parties and the r ecord is sufficient for us to decide the remaining issues”); see also Hoffman v. N. States Power Co. , (addressing a jurisdiction question in the interests of judicial economy).
A19-1347 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Chapter 216B vests “extensive power” in the commission “to set and prospectively regulate rates for Minnesota’s public utility companies.”
In the Matter of: The Trusteeship Created by the Port Authority of the City of St. Paul Relating … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Application of Otter Tail Power Company for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The supreme court has articulated at least two factors in determining whether to invoke the doctrine: “(1) whether the legislature explicitly granted the agency exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) whet her the issues raised are ‘inherently judicial.’”
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
See Siewert v. N. States Power Co. , , 277 (Minn. 2011) ; Hoffman v. N. States Power Co. , , 42 (Minn. 2009) ; Watson ex rel.
A17-0323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Consequently, the supreme court has dismissed as barred claims directly challenging the lawfulness of agency-approved insurance rates, Schermer, d at 317, and claims indirectly challenging the reasonableness of agency-approved utility rates, Hoffman v. N. States Power Co. , 3, 48 (Minn. 2009) .
James J. Zych, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that court of appeals “must determine whether there is proper jurisdiction” by ensuring compliance with certified-question procedure), aff 'd in part, rev’d in part, and remanded on other grounds, (dismiss- ing appeal for failure to comply with certified-question procedure).
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
(addressing in the interest of judicial economy a question not reached by the court of appeals).
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Swenson v. Holsten 783 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
21, 2009); (stating that complaint is viewed liberally on motion for judgment on pleadings).
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 771 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
44 n. 5 (Minn.2009) (“Where the legislature provides for exclusive agency jurisdiction, the separation of powers principles ...