Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237.

213 citing documents.

In Re the Claim for Benefits by Jerve 749 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Staeheli v. City of St. Paul 732 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Staeheli v. City of St. Paul 732 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Certiorari review is limited 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.” (quotation omitted).
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Veit Co. v. Lake County 707 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Veit Co. v. Lake County 707 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hinneberg v. Big Stone County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 706 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2005
Hinneberg v. Big Stone County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 706 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2005
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.”
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
“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 bodies.”
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge 693 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2005
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge 693 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2005
In Re Chisago Lakes School District 690 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re Chisago Lakes School District 690 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[I]n the absence of 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.”
Aaa Striping v. Mn. Dot 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
AAA Striping Service Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Aaa Striping v. Mn. Dot 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
AAA Striping Service Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority 675 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-40 (Minn.1992) (termination of a public employee is a quasi-judicial act); see also Oakman v. City of Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100, 108-09 , 203 N.W.
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Reiling v. City of Eagan 664 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
County of Martin v. Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust 658 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
County of Martin v. Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust 658 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002
No. 11, -74 (Minn.1990) (involving the appeal of *32 a school board decision not to reinstate a teacher); (involving the appeal of the county’s decision to terminate nursing home employee).
Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
the city asserts that Lueth’s only means of review is by writ of certiorari to this court.
United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc. v. Dodge County Planning Commission 636 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc. v. Dodge County Planning Commission 636 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Picha v. County of McLeod 634 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sunrise Lake Ass'n v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(noting judicial review of quasi-judicial administrative decisions must be invoked by writ of certiora-ri).
Reierson v. City of Hibbing 628 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reierson v. City of Hibbing 628 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Maye v. University of Minnesota 615 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maye v. University of Minnesota 615 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
the supreme court noted that *386 [t]he issue which Dietz would have the court review' demands scrutiny of the manner in which the county has discharged its administrative function; the very type of scrutiny that runs a grave risk of usurping the county’s administrative prerogative.
Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota 614 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota 614 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
nfined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the decision-maker, the regularity of the proceedings, and, regarding the merits of the dispute, whether the decision was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” ( (quotation omitted)).
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
y decision not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is reviewed on writ of certiorari by inspecting the record to determine whether the decision was “ ‘arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.’ ” -45 (Minn.App.1996) ( (other quotations omitted)).
State v. Tokheim 611 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Tokheim 611 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rasmussen v. Sauer 597 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1999