Cited by

And because Beri does not explain how the client’s request could excuse his failure to abide by Transit Team’s reasonable policies, see Schmidgall, d at 804, we decline to consider such an argument, see In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, n.2 (Minn. 2015) (declining to consider an argument that was “inadequately briefed”).

ovo.” In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 516 (Minn. 2007) (noting that federal regulations are treated as a state agency’s own regulation “if the state agency is charged with the day-to-day responsibility for enforcing and administering [the] regulation”); see also In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (“Review of a state agency’s interpretation of a federal regulation that the agency is charged with enforcing and administering

if the findings, inferences, or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, or are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, n.2 (Minn. 2015) (declining to reach an issue that was “inadequately briefed”).

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP

In sum, we have an obligation to intervene when “a combination of danger signals” suggests that “the agency has not taken a hard look at the salient problems and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reserve 51 Mining, d at 825).

In reviewing agency decisions, we apply a “presumption of correctness” and will “affirm agency conclusions even if we may have reached a different conclusion if we were the factfinder.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (quotation omitted).

An admi nistrative agency’s decision is presumed correct and we “defer to an agency’s conclusions in the area of its expertise.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (quotation omitted).

We “attach a presumption of correctness” to the decision of an administrative agency and “defer to an agency’s conclusions in the area of its expertise.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (quotations omitted).

See In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, n.2 (Minn. 2015) (declin ing to consider “inadequately briefed” argument); (recognizing that inadequately briefed arguments are forfeited).

See In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP , n.2 (M inn.

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP , aff’d

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP , , 506 (Minn. 2015) ; Peterson v. Wash.

6 re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP , aff’d

Co. v. Lennartson , , 534 n.6 (Minn. 2015) (citing In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP , , 511 (Minn. 2015) ).

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, Indep.

11 decision [bears] the burden of proof.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, d 42, 46 (Minn. App. 2014), aff’d

“Review of a state agency’s interpretation of a federal regulation that the agency is charged with enforcing and administering is a question of law that we review de novo.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (quotations omitted).

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, (“[W]hen the words of a statute are clear, we may not disregard the letter of the law under the pretext of pursuing the law’s spirit.” ()); see also Minn.Stat.