Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board, 550 N.W.2d 275.

48 citing documents.

Alex Lancaster, Relator v. Department of Human Services Minn. 2025
Alex Lancaster, Relator v. Department of Human Services Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Improper Inclusion of Certain Water Courses within Public Waters Inventory Maps for 71 … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bd., d 275, 280 (Minn. 1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially).
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anthony Hernandez v. Minnesota Board of Teaching Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools Independent School District 1 841 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools Independent School District 1 841 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bd., -80 (Minn.1996) (holding that board’s conduct was not quasi-judicial in part because it was “unenforceable” and decided little).
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
The County relies on our decision in Meath v. Harmful Substance , Compensation Board, to argue that the City’s policy was “no more than a settlement protocol,”-that the County was not required to comply with the appeal policy, and therefore that the City Council’s decision was not binding.
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bd., (recognizing that many administrative decisions involve consideration of “evidentia-ry facts developed through investigation” but “few such decisions adjudicate any right or obligation of contending parties”).
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission 761 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Bd., , 281 n. 2 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially).
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(4) Citing a (Anderson, J., concurring), relators argue that the administrative-hearing process established under Minn.Stat.
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank 635 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
Lund v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 615 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lund v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 615 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
( 280 (Minn.1996) and Meath, d at 280 (P. Anderson, J., concurring)).
Maye v. University of Minnesota 615 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maye v. University of Minnesota 615 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Tokheim 611 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Tokheim 611 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
Handicraft Block Ltd. Partnership v. City of Minneapolis 611 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2000
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 606 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 606 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hurrle v. County of Sherburne Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners 594 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” (Anderson, J., concurring specially); (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Rochester Ass
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Dakota Telecommunications Group 590 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-44 (Minn.1999) (-80 (Minn. 1996), and setting forth indicia of quasi-judicial proceeding).
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
(Anderson, Paul H., J., specially concurring); Wulff, d at 225 .
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council 587 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1999
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council 587 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1999
the court of appeals held that respondent’s decision to approve the 1998-2000 TIP with the Project included was quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial, and therefore its decision is not reviewable by writ of certiorari to the court.
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently clarified that “quasi-judicial” actions should be limited to “those administrative decisions which are based on evidentiary facts and which resolve disputed claims of rights.”
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 578 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
281 n. 2 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J. concurring specially) (noting “limited and deferential review” provided by certiorari “ensures that the judiciary does not encroach” on powers of other branches of government).
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The supreme court has observed that “the phrase ‘quasi-judicial act’ has sometimes been so broadly defined that *763 it can be said to include almost any administrative decision based on evidentiary facts.”
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 565 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(“[i]n evaluating the validity of a rate increase application, the Commission should apply the classic burden of proof analysis employed in civil cases in determining whether the utility has established the amount of a claimed cost as a judicial fact”); (Anderson, J., concurring specially) (when performing a quasi-judicial function, agency receives evidence to make factual findings and weighs that evidence as would a trial judge).
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996