Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Commissioner of Health, 811 N.W.2d 162.

46 citing documents.

In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification or Amendment of Appropriate Unit. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In doing so, “we examine the record to review questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Khalif A. Spry, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, d 162, 165 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Denial of the Application of Kathleen Smith for MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Denial of the Application of Kathleen Smith for MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Appeal of James W. Bush and Linda D. Dear, tenants, to a Rent Stabilization Determination at 1391 Hazelwood … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Carrie Lynn Hofmann, et al., petitioners, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (“[I]ssues not raised or argued in appellant’s brief cannot be raised in a reply brief.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Calculation of MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan Annuity for Francisco Henderson. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Complaint Decision File 24-170C on behalf of L.L.B. from Delano 0879-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
City of St. Cloud, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of: Tessa Mortenson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In conducting certiorari review, this court seeks to determine only whether the agency’s decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted)
City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation v. Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt, Relator Minn. Ct. App. 2024
City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation v. Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt, Relator Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Complaint Decision File 23-010C on behalf of D.V.G. from South Washington County Schools 0833-01. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Susan P. Robinson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
On appeal from such decisions, this court considers “whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Re: Youth Leadership Academy dba Gar Gaar Family Services Appeal of Denial of Application for the Child and … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Jacob Robuck, et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Minnesota Department of Corrections, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Detailed by Design LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In re SSTS Soil Dispute Resolution. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
A. A. F., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, review denied (Minn. Apr.
Abdirizak Ahmed Gayre, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In sum, we conclude that “the process afforded to [ Gayre] gave him a full and fair opportunity to challenge any factual and legal issue made relevant by the terms of the disqualification statute.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , review denied (Minn. Apr.
A. L. G., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Richard Duncan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N In reviewing the merits of a certiorari appeal, this court examines whether “the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive , unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law , or without any evidence to su pport it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Dwayne Eugene Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An individual “has a protected property interest in holding direct -care positions in state-licensed facilities.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Felicia Marie Thomas, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , review denied (Minn. Apr.
In the Matter of the Appeal by Woodson Institute for Excellence Charter School. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review the merits of a controversy to consider whether the agency’s decision “ was arbitr ary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Shonwta Demar Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
to MAPA, this court examines “the record to review questions affecting the jurisdiction of the agency, the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was ar bitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
A. A. A., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
such decisions, we review the record and examine “questions affecting the jurisdiction of the agency , the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. C omm’r of Health , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Michael McCabe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Partners in Nutrition's Appeal of Disapproval of Site Expansion in the CACFP Program 896 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Partners in Nutrition's Appeal of Disapproval of Site Expansion in the CACFP Program 896 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
strative Procedure Act, we examine the record to review questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Douglas Place Treatment Center, LLC, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quoting Rodne v. Comm’r of Human Servs., –45 (Minn. App. 1996)), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, d 162, 166 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services 884 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court reviews the commissioner’s decision, a quasi-judicial agency decision not subject to the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, to determine whether the decision is “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Edna Musu Swaray, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Edna Musu Swaray, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, review denied (Minn. Apr.
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On appeal, this court examines the record to determine whether the commissioner’s decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
John Fasan Atambo, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Fasan Atambo, Relator v. Commissioner of Health Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n was erroneous because the evidence supports his innocence of the underlying offense.2 Because the commissioner’s decision on reconsideration is a quasi-judicial agency decision, we examine the record and determine whether the decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ould review the quasi-judicial agency decision for “questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, review denied (Minn. Apr.
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Education 844 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Procedure Act (MAPA) by examining the record “to review questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, review denied (Minn. Apr.