Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 342 N.W.2d 348.

71 citing documents.

Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. 367 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“An agency finding is arbitrary and capricious when its determination represents its will and not its judgment.” pet.
In re Crestview Manor, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re Crestview Manor, Inc. 365 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(although an agency is not bound by its own precedent, it must either conform to its prior decisions or explain the reason for its departure from such precedent), pet.
In Re Authorization to Discharge & Construct Waste-Water Treatment Facilities 366 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Authorization to Discharge & Construct Waste-Water Treatment Facilities 366 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Normally, an agency decision not supported by written findings and conclusions will be held arbitrary and capricious because the decision “represents the agency’s will rather than its judgment.” Peoples *122 pet.
Life Star Ambulance System, Inc. v. Ashton 363 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Life Star Ambulance System, Inc. v. Ashton 363 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(quoting Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Co-Op, Inc., ): We view that by the “substantial evidence” test is meant: 1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2) more than a scintilla of evidence; 3) more than “some evidence”
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 364 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
A decision of this magnitude not supported by written findings and reasons is arbitrary and capricious because “it represents the agency’s will rather than its judgment.” pet.
Petition of Peoples Natural Gas Co. 358 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Petition of Peoples Natural Gas Co. 358 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“An agency finding is arbitrary and capricious when its determination represents its will and not its judgment.” pet.
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 358 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 358 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Conagra, Inc. v. Swanson 356 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Conagra, Inc. v. Swanson 356 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
792, 801-802 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965)
Central Telephone Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 356 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Central Telephone Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 356 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“An agency must either conform to its prior norms and decisions or explain the reason for its departure from such precedent.” 353 (Minn.Ct.App.1983) (citations omitted)
Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 354 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare 354 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
§ 14.69(e) (1982); Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Comm’n
Blocher Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 347 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Blocher Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 347 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Using the standards set forth in People’s Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Comm’n, we conclude that there is substantial evidence when reviewed in light of the entire record to support the Commissioner’s conclusions.