Cited by

Judicial review of a state agency, like respondent, is “both limited and deferential.”

2 To prevail on a negligent misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that “the defendant supplie[d] false information to the plaintiff.”

A negligent-misrepresentation claim requires that a plaintiff show: (1) that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant gave the plaintiff false 24 information; (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the false information; and (4) that the defendant failed “to exercise reasonable care in communicating the [false] information.”

To succeed on a negligent-misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant supplie[d] false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information.”

(outlining elements for a negligent misrepresentation claim, including reliance); Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg.

“The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s “authority to hear the type of dispute and to grant the type of relief sought.” -13 (Minn. 2012).

Williams v. Smith , –13 (Minn. 2012).

Because we have an obligation to ensure that subject-matter jurisdiction exists before we review the merits of the district court’s decision, see, - 13 (Minn. 2012), we begin by considering the county’s jurisdictional argument.

Res., 612 NW.2d 862, 866–68 (Minn. 2000) (noting “that total reliance on a judgment’s validity produces problematic results when attacks on subject matter jurisdiction are initiated long af ter a final judgment is entered” and balancing the judicial system’s competing interests in validity versus finality of judgments).10 10 Respondents cite to Williams v. Smith , to support their claim that a postconviction petitioner may challenge the underlying district court’s subject matter jurisdiction to

“When a party challenges the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court, the court must examine whether it has the authority to hear the type of dispute and to grant the type of relief sought.” -13 (Minn. 2012).

We review de novo questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, timeliness, Rowe v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ.

le.” “To prevail on a negligent misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff must establish: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant supplies false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the 10 information.”

Williams v. Smith , d 807, 815 (Minn. 2012).

To prevail on a claim of negligent 5 misrepresentation, Loel must establish “(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant supplies false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information.”

ntation requires the plaintiff to 8 establish “(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant supplies false information to the plaintiff; (3) justifiable reliance upon the information by the plaintiff; and (4) failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information.”

Furthermore, whenever a party asserts that subject- matter jurisdiction is lacking, a court is obligated to “examine whether it has the authority to hear the type of dispute and to grant the type of relief sought.” -13 (Minn. 2012).

at 542 ., Under the rule from County of Washington, “[w]hen the underlying basis of the claim requires review of a municipality’s quasi-judicial decision to determine its-validity” — that is, whether the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious — then the “exclusive method of review is by certiorari under chapter 606.” Id.; (concluding that a tort claim that “[did] not involve any inquiry into” a government entity’s employment decision was not subject to cer-tiorari review); . (statin

d 807, 813 (Minn. 2012); Brenny v. Bd.

“Defects in subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and cannot be waived.” (quotation omitted).

d 807, 812-13 (Minn. 2012).

(stating elements of negligent-misrepresentation claim).