Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roseville Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846.

28 citing documents.

Doran v. Independent School District No. 720 831 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Doran v. Independent School District No. 720 831 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
No. 623, (“The purpose of a subsequent hearing [in unrequested leave determinations], if requested, is to test the basis for that proposed determination.”).
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
No. 623, (holding that timely issuance of a writ of certiorari is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” to judicial review); cf. Minn.Stat.
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
No. 623, (issuance of writ within 60 days is jurisdictional requirement for judicial review); Township of Honner, d at 641 (same).
Township of Honner v. Redwood County 518 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Township of Honner v. Redwood County 518 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
No. 623, (issuance of the writ within 60 days is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review).
Johnson v. Independent School District No. 281 494 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1992
Johnson v. Independent School District No. 281 494 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1992
§ 606.01 (1990) provides that a writ of certiorari “shall be issued within 60 days after the party applying for such writ shall have received notice of the proceeding sought to be reviewed thereby.” A timely writ is a “jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review.” Roseville Education Ass’n v. Independent School District No. 623
In re the Placement of Johnson 484 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1992
In re the Placement of Johnson 484 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1992
# 623, and Dokmo v. I.S.D.
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 459 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1990
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 459 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1990
Harms v. Independent School District No. 300 450 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 1990
Harms v. Independent School District No. 300 450 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 1990
No. 623, Walter v. Independent School Dist.
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 443 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 443 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Strand v. Special School District No. 1, Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, Grinolds v. Independent School District No. 597, (Grinolds I); Collins v. Independent School District No. 745
Collins v. Independent School District No. 745 416 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Collins v. Independent School District No. 745 416 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The school district argues that since Collins received notice of ULA more than 60 days prior to the issuance of this writ, his challenge is untimely, citing Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623
Evans v. Independent School District No. 281 396 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Evans v. Independent School District No. 281 396 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, (Roseville Education II).
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
See Rose-ville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623
Blank v. Independent School District No. 16 393 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1986
Blank v. Independent School District No. 16 393 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1986
See also Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, (effect of failure to request a hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat.