Cited by

lidity” — that is, whether the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious — then the “exclusive method of review is by certiorari under chapter 606.” Id.; (concluding that a tort claim that “[did] not involve any inquiry into” a government entity’s employment decision was not subject to cer-tiorari review); . (stating that a court conducting certiorari review determines whether a decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law,- or without

Certiorari review is limited to “questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [commission], 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.” (quotation omitted).

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.’” ()).

DECISION On appeal of an administrative agency’s decision, this court examines the record to determine whether the commissioner’s decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

Although we have explained that the unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious standard is “non-intrusive,” Griswold says that any procedure that “emasculates the safeguards of competitive bidding” invalidates the process and the contract, 242 Minn. at 536 , d at 652 .

ons 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.” (quoting State ex rel.

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).

Certiorari review is limited to “questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [commission], 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.” (quotation omitted).

The limited nature of certiorari review ensures that such decisions are “granted deference by the judiciary to avoid usurpation of the executive body’s administrative prerogatives.” Tischer, d at 429 ; (“Because it mandates nonintrusive and expedient judicial review, certiorari is compatible with the maintenance of fundamental separation of power principles, and thus is a particularly appropriate method of limiting and coordinating judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of executive bod

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) (concluding that certiorari was the appropriate method to re

(quotation omitted); (noting that county nursing home administrator was required to appeal her termination decision by writ of certiorari because no statute permitted a right of appeal of an administrative decision by a county administrative body).

A certiorari review of the merits of a quasi-judicial decision is limited to “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).

(stating that the narrow scope of “certiora-ri is compatible with the maintenance of fundamental separation of power principles, and thus is a particularly appropriate method of limiting and coordinating judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of executive bodies” (footnote omitted)).

Certiorari review is limited “to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [decision-making 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 without any evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

Judicial review of an administrative agency’s quasi-judicial decision, “if available, must be invoked by writ of cer-tiorari.”

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 reserve unit member), review denied (Minn. Sept.

Certiorari “mandates nonintrusive and expedient judicial review,” which “ensures that the judiciary does not encroach upon the constitutional power spheres of the other two branches of government,” Meath v. Harmful Substance Comp.

(holding whether a teacher entered into a “for cause” or “at will” employment contract is a question of law that is appropriate for review on certiorari).