Cited by

And appellate courts neither ‘‘substitute [their] own findings of fact for those of a city’’ nor ‘‘engage in a de novo review of conflicting evidence.”

A state may create a liberty interest “by placing substantive limitations on official discretion” and “mandating the outcome to be reached upon a finding that the relevant criteria have been met.” Thompson, 490 U.S. at 462 (quotation omitted); (applying Thompson); (same); State ex rel.

7 time and in a meaningful manner.” (quotation omitted).

(“Whether the government has violated a person ’s procedural due-process rights is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”); d 486, 500 (Minn. App. 2025) (reviewing appellant’s argument that the city violated his constitutional right to due process de novo

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 7 319, 333 (1976)

“We conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).

8 Normally, “[w]e conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.”

When evaluating a procedural-due-process claim, appellate courts first “identify whether the government has deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest,” and then, if that type of deprivation exists, we “determine whether the procedures followed by the government were constitutionally sufficient.” d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

First, we determine whether the government “deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.”

16 have been violated “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

“We conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.” d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).

d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).

He is fundamentally entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard, and the record informs us that the district court vindicated his rights in that regard.

633–35 (Minn. 2012) (applying “the three-factor balancing test from Mathews” in considering a procedural-due-process claim in a certiorari appeal).

Procedural due process requires that a person have notice and “an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” (quotation omitted).

d 627, 633 (Minn. 2012).

d 627, 632-33 (Minn. 2012).

Appellate courts “conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes

“Whether the government has violated a person’s procedural due process rights is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

A city’s decision is not arbitrary and capricious if the city has explained “how it derived its conclusions, and [the city’s] conclusion is reasonable on the basis of the record.”

Appellate courts apply a two-step analysis, first identifying “whether the government has deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest,” and, if so, then determining “whether the procedures followed by the government were constitutionally sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976); d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).

When we evaluate a procedural-due-process claim, we must first identify “whether the government has deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.”

Appellate courts review quasi-judicial decisions “under a ‘limited and nonintrusive standard of review .’” Reetz v. City of Saint Paul , (quoting Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , ).

601 (Minn. 2019) (stating that “[a]t its core, due process requires that the procedures used by the government before depriving an individual of his or her ‘protected life, liberty, or property interest’ must ‘provide [that] individual with notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way’ ” (second alteration in original) ().

d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).

Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , ; see also Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) ( noting that the hallmark of procedural due process is “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”) (quotation omitted )).

d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012).