Cited by

–43 (Minn. App. 2011) (applying the precept that every statutory provision has meaning to a local ordinance).

held by Khan, d 132, 137 (Minn. App. 2011).

(“An assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

“The interpretation and application of a city ordinance is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

But we will reverse if the city’s decision “lacked substantial evidence in view of the entire record submitted.”

The party seeking reversal has the burden of demonstrating error.” (first alteration in original) (d 86, 88 (Minn. App. 2001)).

“Procedural due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” d 132, 137 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

“Whether procedural due-process rights have been violated is a question of law, which we review de novo.” (M inn.

A decision -maker is biased if their “situation could tempt ‘the average [person]’ as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to rule against an alleged violator.” (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 5 Indeed, in unpublished decisions, we have expressly rejected the claim that Sweet was wrongly decided.

But we recognize that “[t]here is a presumption of administrative regularity, and the party claiming otherwise has the burden of proving a decision was reached improperly.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION “A quasi-judicial decision made by a municipality is reviewable through a writ of certiorari.”

When reviewing an ordinance, “[i]t is the duty of courts to construe statutes and ordinances to avoid absurd restrictions or results.” Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187

“The party attacking the validity of an ordinance has the burden of proof.” (citing State v. Perry, 269 Minn. 204, 206 , ).