Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 469 N.W.2d 100.

25 citing documents.

In re the Matter of the Petition of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for a Declaration that the … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency , d 100, 102 (Minn. App. 1991) (emphasis added) , rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 1991) .
In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And a decision is not arbitrary and capricious if the agency can “ explain on what evidence it is relying and how that evidence connects rationally to the rule involved.” Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Pollution Control Agency , review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991)
Water in Motion, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Minnesota Plumbing Board Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Water in Motion, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Minnesota Plumbing Board Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When applying the arbitrary and capricious test, deference is to be shown agency expertise, but the agency must explain on what evidence it is relying and how that evidence connects rationally to the rule involved.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
United States Steel Corporation, Relator v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
United States Steel Corporation, Relator v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
permitting staff decides the appropriate re-modeling language for a particular permit on a case-by-case basis, based on particular facts (i.e. prior modeling results).” Because of this, the MPCA contends that it has established a policy, rather than a rule; in doing so, it relies on Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. Minn. 7 Pollution Control Agency, review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991), in which this court held that site-specific standards applied on a case-by-case basis did not create rules because t
Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 859 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 859 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A pre-enforcement challenge “questions the process by which the rule was made and the rule’s general validity before it is enforced against any particular party.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991) (“This court has original jurisdiction to determine the validity of an agency’s rules, including amendments.”); Minn. Stat. § 14.381, subd.
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
563 (1955)); (applying the burden language in Pettersen to review of a procedural due process claim), review denied (Minn. Jul.
In Re the Appeal of Rocheleau 686 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Appeal of Rocheleau 686 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).
Peterson v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry 591 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Peterson v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry 591 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Dullard v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services 529 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Dullard v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services 529 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce 524 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Department of Commerce 524 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
*34 ANALYSIS I. The legislature has granted this court “original jurisdiction to determine the validity of an agency’s rules, including amendments.” (citing Minn.Stat.