Cited by

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , cf. Builders Ass’n of Twin Cities v. Minn. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., (declaring agency’s r ule invalid under the arbitrary -and-capricious standard when the record contained “no reasoned determination of how [the agency] arrived at the [exception to the rule

The district court applied a plain-language definition together with the standard of review applicable to agency decisions described by the supreme court in RDNT

Therefore, this court “will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a [CUP] application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

We will reverse a conditional use permit approval “if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

“We will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

This court “will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a [CU P] application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously .” RDNT

t in the best interests of the children” and that “[the agency] has been reasonable in deciding to place the children with someone other than relatives [appellants].” Determining whether a decision was reasonable requires asking whether “the reasons given by the [agency] were legally sufficient” and whether “the reasons had a factual basis in the record.” RDNT, LLC, v. City of Bloomington , -76 ( Minn. 2015) (discussing reasonableness in the context of a city’s decision to deny a conditional -us

See RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015) (concluding that if reasons for decision are legally sufficient, appellate courts determine whether “the reasons had a factual basis in the record”).

RDNT, (internal citation omitted).

We “will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a [CUP] application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

RDNT, LLC, v. City of Bloomington, - 76 (Minn. 2015).

In determining whether the county acted unreasonably, an appellate court follows a two-step process: first we determine whether the reasons given by the county were legally sufficient; second, if the reasons were legally sufficient, we must determine whether “the reasons had a factual basis in the record.” RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , –76 (Minn. 2015).

“We will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

In determining whether a county acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously in denying a CUP, an appellate court must examine whether the reasons given by the county were “legally sufficient” an d determine whether the legally sufficient reasons “had a factual basis in the record.” RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , -76 (Minn. 2015).

An appellate court “will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

In determining whether the county acted unreasonably, an appellate court follows a two-step process: first we examine whether the reasons given by the county were legally sufficient; second, if the reasons are legally sufficient, we must determine whether “the reasons had a factual basis in the record.” RDNT, –76 (Minn. 2015).

RDNT, LLC, v. City of Bloomington

As we said recently, “our task in this case, like any other is not to make legislative policy but to interpret and apply existing statutes....” RDNT, , 77 n. 5 (Minn.2015).