Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
[s]uch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2.[m]ore than a scintilla of evidence; 3.[m]ore than some evidence; 4.[m]ore than any evidence; and 5.[e]vi-dence considered in its entirety.” White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997), review defied (Minn. Oct.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Commissioner of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 696 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Commissioner of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 696 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Board of Commissioners 694 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Board of Commissioners 694 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Our review of an agency’s consideration of environmental factors is limited, and we will intervene only when the record suggests “the agency has not taken a ‘hard look’ at the salient problems” and its decision lacks “articulated standards and reflective findings.” White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997) (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
McEa v. Mpca 632 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
McEa v. Mpca 632 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 632 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Res., , 730 (Minn.App.1997) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
To establish a prima facie ease, a potential plaintiff must first identify “the existence of a pro-tectable natural resource.” White v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, , 737 (Minn.App.1997) (citation omitted).
In Re American Iron and Supply Co. 604 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
City of Minneapolis v. State 604 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
We will affirm the agency’s decision if it was not arbitrary or capricious “even though [the court] may have reached a different conclusion had it been the fact-finder.” White v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, , 730 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In Re American Iron and Supply Co. 604 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad 597 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Williams Pipeline Co. v. Soo Line Railroad 597 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-38 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Pope County Mothers v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 594 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
White v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, , 731 (Minn.App.1997) (concluding that EAW that “extensively addresses the extent to which identified environmental effects can be mitigated” complies with Trout), review denied (Minn. Oct.
National Audubon Society v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 569 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See White v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, , 734 (Minn.App.1997) (holding that under plain language of MEPA, reviewing agency must base decision to prepare EAW on administrative record).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by