Cited by

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing quasi- judicial agency decisions, we will reverse only “when it is fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, not within its jurisdiction, or based on an error of law.” (quotation omitted).

And “[t]he substantial evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted); (describing that the substantial-evidence analysis determines “whether the agency has adequately explained how it derived its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reasonable”

We are guided by the supreme court’s reasoning in

“Generally, we will not consider an issue not addressed below.” ().

Additionally, there is no indication in the record that Rickmyer offered the document into evidence or otherwise filed the email 7 correspondence with the district court before that court made its decision.2 “Generally, we will not consider an issue not addressed below.” (citing Thiele, d at 582).

However, we may decide an issue not determined in the final decision from which the appeal was taken when the “unaddressed issue involves a question of law and the parties had an opportunity to brief the issue.” (addressing issue related to a ground for dismissal of student under the Minnesota Pupil Fair Dismissal Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.40-.575 (2014), despite issue not being decided by Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education in the decision from which the student’s appeal was ta

31 matter before it.” (), aff’d, d 178 (Minn. 2024); (discussing the Thiele forfeiture analysis in the context of a certiorari appeal).

(stating that reviewing court generally will consider only issues raised and considered below); (applying Thiele in certiorari appeal).

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

We will affirm an agency’s decision as long as it is supported by substantial evidence, which addresses “the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that reviewing court must generally consider only issues previously considered and decided); (applying Thiele rule in appeal from agency decision).

If an “agency’s findings are insufficient, the case can be either remanded for additional findings or reversed for lacking substantial evidence supporting the decision.” PolyMet, d at 11 ().

See In re NorthMet 14 Project Permit to Mine Application

Yet, on the Household (discussing this aspect of Thiele in certiorari review of an agency decision).

2 “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted); (citing Thiele as applicable to an appeal arising from a final administrative decision).

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted); (stating that the substantial-evidence analysis determines “whether the agency has adequately explained how it derived its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reasonable” (quota

Instead, we remand the case to DHS “ ‘to permit further evidence to be taken or additional findings to be made in accordance with the applicable law.’ ” ().

“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the [decision-maker] in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted); (discussing this forfeiture analysis in right to be determined after an agency hearing”), .63 (authorizing certiorari appeal from a final decision in a contested case), 127A.41, subd.

v. Nor-west Cable Commc’ns P’ship, -69 (Minn. 1984); Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Dep’t, (stating that the substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it).

(“Generally, we will not consider an issue not addressed below.”).

The commissioner noted that, in the supreme court stated that there is no endangerment if “the risk and possibility of harm is too tenuous to constitute substantial 4 evidence of endangerment.” See id.

(stating that the substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it).

Under Minnesota law, “the substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

“The substantial-evidence standard addresses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” d 251, 259 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

( to an issue on certiorari review).

(applying Thiele in a certiorari appeal).

“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted); (applying Thiele to a certiorari appeal).

“The substantial-evidence standard addre sses the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted).

(stating matters that were not argued to and considered by the district court will not be considered on appeal); (applying Thiele in a certiorari appeal).

(“[W]e will not consider an issue not addressed below.”).

(stating that an appellate court generally “will not consider an issue not addressed below”).