Cited by

of Sherburne, (holding that a Minnesota Human Rights Act claim is not required to be pursued by certiorari).

We are mindful that an opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court is “a definitive statement of the law of Minnesota,” and that this court should not encroach on the supreme court’s authority, rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

See generally Willis v. C ounty of Sherburne , -82 (Minn. 1996).

Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., (citations omitted); n.1 (Minn. 1996) (stating that 4 “order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is immediately appealable of right”).

The rule we announced in County of Washington is consistent with another of our decisions

of Sherburne, –83 (Minn. 1996) (considering whether certiorari review was the exclusive method for reviewing an employment-termination decision, setting forth inquiry of examining the underlying claim and assessing whether its outcome depended on the validity of the municipality’s quasi-judicial decision).

of Sherburne, (holding that an aggrieved party has the right to petition for a writ of certiorari “[w]here no right of discretionary review has been provided by statute or appellate rules”).

In Willis v. County of Sherburne, we held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a defamation claim brought against a government agency because the alleged defamation “occurred over a period of time which began more than a year before he was discharged and was separate and distinct from the termination of his employment.”

of Sherburne, (holding that “a petition for a writ of certiorari provides the exclusive means by which an employee can secure judicial review of the county’s employment termination decision”); -08 (Minn.1988) (conc

of Sherburne, the supreme court summarily rejected a plaintiffs recasting of a wrongful-discharge complaint as a “pure” breach-of-contract claim in order to avoid the exclusivity of certiorari review.

of Sherburne, -83 (Minn.1996) (concluding that common-law defamation claim against executive body was subject to district court’s jurisdiction because it did not involve inquiry into a discretionary decision and, therefore, did not implicate separation-of-powers concerns).

(involving termination of single employee).

at 190 ( (involving termination of county department director); (involving termination of nursing home administrator); Dokmo, d at 673 (involving termination of teacher); (termination of police r

See, (claiming under the Minnesota Human Rights Act); Woolley, d at 303 (claiming under the Uniform Arbitration Act).

Willis *407 v. County of Sherburne

Other courts refer to “executive bodies.” See, (referring to counties).

the city asserts that Lueth’s only means of review is by writ of certiorari to this court.

(concluding that defamation claim was not subject to certiorari review along with wrongful termination claim, despite having arisen from same nucleus of operative facts, where defamation claim did not require inquiry into the quasi-judicial termination decision).

Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s this court held that petitions for writ of certiorari are appropriate when an employee raises a “pure breach of contract” claim.

But when a party has a statutory cause of action by which to pursue a claimed statutory violation by an administrative decision-maker, review of that claim by writ of certiorari is not appropriate even if “prosecution of the alleged violation * * * may implicate at least some aspects of the [administrative] decision.” Manteuffel v. City of North St.

See, (absent statutory authority for different process, challenge to county’s termination decision subject to writ of certiorari); (county’s termination decision reviewable by writ of certiorari); Dokmo v. Independent Sch.