Cited by

We review a city council’s quasi-judicial decision using a limited and “nonintrusive” standard of review and will only reverse the city council’s decision if it was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); (stating that certiorari review of quasi-judicial decisions of local agencies is limited to questions affecting jurisdiction, the regularity of the proceedings, and whether the decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence

was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

Judicial review is available even when the record “plainly falls short of a record generated in formal judicial proceedings.”

This court “may review an agency’s decision by writ of certiorari when there is no statute or appellate rule that otherwise permits judicial review, provided that the decision being appealed is quasi-judicial or judicial in nature.” Eneh v. Minn. Dep’t of Health, ().

Our review of the merits of such decisions is limited to whether the decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

No. 11, –78 (Minn. 1990) (involving a challenge to a school board’s refusal to reinstate a teacher returning from an extended leave of absence where there was no alternative review process available); –41 (Minn. 1992) (involving a challenge to a county employee’s termination where there was no alternative review process available); Interstate Power Co., Inc. v. Nobles Cnty.

an inspection of the record” and “is necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board, the regularity of its 7 proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992) (quotation omitted).

at 601-03; see also Dietz v. Dodge County , (reasoning that “certiorari is compatible with the maintenance of fundamental separation of power principles” because “it mandates nonintrusive and expedient judicial review”).

In conducting certiorari review, this court seeks to determine only whether the agency’s decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted)

Servs., ( (internal quotation marks omitted).

4 review of a quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act is limited to questions affecting jurisdiction, the regularity of the proceedings, and whether the decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge C ounty, (quotation omitted).

On judicial review by writ of certiorari appeal of a quasi-judicial decision of a local government, this court’s review is limited to determining whether the decision is “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted); see also Reetz v. City of St.

was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quoting State ex rel.

A quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act is reviewed on writ of certiorari by reviewing the record to determine “whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

2 7 (defining agency), 3 (defining contested case), .63 (governing judicial review of decisions in contested cases); (holding that “there is no contested case here and no judicial review under [] MAPA”); (explaining that “[t]he county, not having statewide jurisdiction, is not subject to [MAPA]”).

We review a city’s quasi -judicial decision to determine whether it was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, f raudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge County , (quotation omitted).

Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (2020).

f the [decision-making body], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determin ation in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” () (applying this principle to an appeal of a city co uncil’s nuisance-abatement decision).

We review a quasi -judicial decision for whether it is “arbitrary, 10 oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support i t.” (quotation omitted).

the court’s inspection of the record is “necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board, the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that a ppellant’s failure to appeal UMN’s decision via a writ of certiorari is fatal to the state-law claims in the matter before us. Absent “an adequate method of review or legal remedy, judicial review of the quasi- judicial decisions of administrative bodies, if available, must be invoked by writ of certiorari.” Dietz v. Dodge County

D E C I S I O N Certiorari review is limited to “questions affecting the jurisdic tion of the [government body], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or withou t any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

We review a quasi-judicial decision rendered by a city using a limited and “nonintrusive” standard of review, and we will only reverse the city council’s decision if it was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge County , (quotation omitted).

review of a municipal agency’s action is limited to questions regarding the agency’s jurisdiction, “the regularity of its proceedings,” and “whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, 3 under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

We review a city council’s quasi-judicial acts using a limited and “nonintrusive” standard, only reversing if the order or determination was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.”

(“The reviewing court may consider only the evidence in the record before [a city] when [its quasi-judicial] decision was made.” (d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992))).