Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 567 N.W.2d 724.

67 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Res., (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
In re Defense and Indemnification of Matthew Severance - Awaijane v. Bittell, In re Defense and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Res., (identifying circumstances when courts may consider documents “outside the administrative record”).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Res., rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Resources, (quoting Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp.
Application for a Sulfate Site-Specific Standard for Hay Lake (AUID 31-0037-00), located downstream of the U.S. Steel - … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Res., (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for PolyMet Mining, Inc., City of Hoyt … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Inc., et al., Relators, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Res., (concluding an alternative EAW did not avoid the issue or evidence of air quality merely because the appellants’ evidence may contradict the evidence in the record), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Erica Hopper McMullen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re City of Cohasset’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Frontier … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Res., (explaining that evidence outside the administrative record may be considered when “additional evidence is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter involved in the agency action” or “the agency failed to consider information relevant to making its decision”), rev. denie
In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Border to Border … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Res., rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Reestablishment of Big Stone County Ditch 21 Drainage System Records. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 724, 735 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mankato Motorsports … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A19-0134 Minn. 2021
Res., rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See White v. Minnesota Dep’t of Nat’l Res., (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. 930 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. 930 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
732 (Minn. App. 1997) (holding that DNR did not err by excluding from cumulative-effects analysis future trails when no future projects were anticipated: "Because there were no specific plans ...
A18-1291 A18-1292 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Res., (holding that DNR did not err by excluding from cumulative -effects analysis future trails when no future projects were anticipated: “Because there were no specific plans .
, A18-1524, A18-1608 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Res., -32 (Minn. App. 1997) (holding that DNR did not err by excluding from cumulative-effects analysis future trails when no future projects were anticipated: “Because there were no specific plans .
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Bruce Eberhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quoting Waters v. Fiebelkorn , -65 ( Minn. 1944)).
In re the Matter of: Nezha Boutlane, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Res., (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Shonwta Demar Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Res., review denied (Minn. Oct.
Dr. Jonathan Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Res., , 734 (Minn. App. 1997) (error is never presumed on appeal, and the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Curtis Trude, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Res., d 724, 734 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
West McDonald Lake Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 899 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Audrey Melody Ashford, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Res., , review denied (Minn. Oct .
Fulisha Fulmer, Relator v. Meridian Behavioral Health, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Res., (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Terry Torgerson, Relator v. Mark R. Hellerud, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Res., (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Carole Jean Halverson v. State of Minnesota, and State of Minnesota v. Carole Jean Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Res., review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of: Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Res., review denied (Minn. Oct.
David Kroona v. Frank Dunbar, Padun GV, LLC 868 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Res., (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Rahn's Oil & Propane, Inc. v. Ettel Logistics, Inc., ELI Logistics, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Application of Gourley Brothers, LLC for a Water Appropriation Permit. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Substantial evidence means “(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; (4) more than any evidence; and (5) evidence considered in its entirety.” (quoting Cable Cmmc’ns Bd.
Connaughty v. Winona County Board of Commissioners 849 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 732 (Minn.App.1997).
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 734 (Minn.App.1997) (stating that error is never presumed on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville 764 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
[evidence considered in its entirety.” White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
City of Bloomington v. City of Burnsville 666 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Agency decisions are reversed only when they reflect an error of law, the findings are arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.” White v. Minn. Dep’t. of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997)(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In Re Application for PERA Retirement Benefits of McGuire 756 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
White v. Minn. Dep’t. of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Fine v. Bernstein 726 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
As the court of appeals has correctly held, “[an RGU] cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS on the basis of speculative factors.” see also White v. Minn. Dept, of Natural Res., (“Appellants cannot avoid summary judgment by producing evidence of a mere possibility of harm to rare and sensitive plants.”).
Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS 713 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2006
("Appellants cannot avoid summary judgment by producing evidence of a mere possibility of harm to rare and sensitive plants.").