Cited by

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

213 citing documents.

Rasmussen v. Sauer 597 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See, (absent statutory authority for different process, challenge to county’s termination decision subject to writ of certiorari); (county’s termination decision reviewable by writ of certiorari); Dokmo v. Independent Sch.
Zellman Ex Rel. M.Z. v. Independent School District No. 2758 594 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Zellman Ex Rel. M.Z. v. Independent School District No. 2758 594 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Shaw v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota 594 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Shaw v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota 594 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
Alternately, appeal of most administrative decisions is taken by writ of certiorari, and the court determines only whether the decision was "arbitraiy, oppressive, unreasonable, [or] fraudulent.” (citations omitted); Minn.Stat.
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
MacCharles v. State Department of Revenue 584 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding that certiorari is the proper means for obtaining review of quasi-judicial decisions).
Buchwald v. University of Minnesotsa 573 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchwald v. University of Minnesotsa 573 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
strative body in which the court *726 “is necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board, the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to the 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.
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners 568 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In reviewing the quasi-judicial decision of a government body not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, we consider whether the decision was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” (citation omitted).
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Education 567 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-81 (Minn.1996) (characterizing Dokmo as reiterating the principles governing review of quasi-judicial decisions of executive bodies); Meath, d at 277 (certiorari unavailable because denial of compensation from the harmful substance compensation account not a quasi-judicial decision); (county’s decision to terminate employee was quasi-judicial in náture, warranting the issuance of writ of certiorari).
Mowry v. Young 565 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mowry v. Young 565 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-40 (Minn.1992) (county’s decision to terminate nursing home administrator was quasi-judicial decision); Heideman v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (Metropolitan Airports Commission’s termination of employee was quasi-judicial decision); see also Naegele Outdoor Advertising, 551
Radke v. St. Louis County Board 558 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Radke v. St. Louis County Board 558 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State Department of Labor & Industry Ex Rel. Special Compensation Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. 555 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State Department of Labor & Industry Ex Rel. Special Compensation Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. 555 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 555 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 555 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
DECISION “In 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.”
In Re Termination of Gay 555 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Termination of Gay 555 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(county’s employment termination decision reviewable only by certiorari under Minn.Stat.
Willis v. County of Sherburne 555 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1996
Willis v. County of Sherburne 555 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1996
Willis seeks reversal of the dismissal of his breach of contract count, should be overruled or substantially limited.
Clark v. Independent School District No. 834 553 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Clark v. Independent School District No. 834 553 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(reasoning that reinstatement distinguished discharge claim from contract claim).
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board 550 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1996
Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board 550 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1996
Plunkett v. First Nat’l Bank of Austin, 262 Minn. 231 , 233 n. 2, , 237 n. 2 (1962); State, ex rel.
Rodne v. Commissioner of Human Services 547 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rodne v. Commissioner of Human Services 547 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Senior v. City of Edina 547 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Senior v. City of Edina 547 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
f the record of the inferior tribunal and “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.” (quoting State ex rel.
Toby's of Alexandria, Inc. v. County of Douglas 545 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Toby's of Alexandria, Inc. v. County of Douglas 545 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Shetka v. Aitkin County 541 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Shetka v. Aitkin County 541 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
the supreme court observed: 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 coor *353 dinating judicial review of the quasi-judici
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(school district); , 239 n. 3 (Minn.1992) (“[ejertiorari lies to review the quasi-judicial decisions of a broad array of executive bodies.”) (employee could bring purely contractual claim in district court where plaintiff was not challenging termination nor seeking reinstat
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul 538 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
On remand, the trial court again dismissed the "Whistleblower claim, (holding that the exclusive method for an employee to receive judicial review of a county employer’s termination decision is by writ of certiorari).
Zuehlke v. Independent School District No. 316 538 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Zuehlke v. Independent School District No. 316 538 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
City of Shorewood v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 533 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1995
City of Shorewood v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 533 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1995
Pierce v. Otter Tail County 524 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1994