contested case hearing in Minnesota

2016Minn. R. 7000 .1900, subp. 1 (2009). 17 The party requesting a contested-case hearing bears the “burden of demonstrating the existence of material facts that would aid the agency before [it is] entitled to a contested case hearing.” Red Wing Ash Disposal Facility, 421 N.W.2d at 404 .

2016See Red Wing Ash Disposal Facility, 421 N.W.2d at 404 (stating that party failed to raise any fact issues which could be resolved in a contested-case hearing because they did not provide “any indication of what specific new facts an expert might 18 We therefore conclude that the MPCA did not err by declining to grant a contested- case hearing where the petitions asserted legal, rather than factual, arguments.

1999See Minn. Stat. § 14.02 , subd. 3 (1998) (defining “contested case”); Cable Communications Bd., 356 N.W.2d at 666 (noting that, although Cable Act does not provide right to contested ease hearing, a hearing may be required by constitution).

1989Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658, 665 (Minn.1984).

2019"The burden is on relator, as the party requesting a contested case hearing, to demonstrate the existence of material facts that would aid the agency in making a decision." In re City of Owatonna's NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance for Discharge of Treated Wastewater , 672 N.W.2d 921 , 929 (Minn. App. 2004).

2005Cf. id. at 928 (noting that the agency erred by denying a contested-case hearing based in part on economic considerations because “the phosphorus rule does not take into account economic considerations”).

1995See In re Implementation of Utility Energy Conservation Improvement Programs, 368 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn.App.1985) (contested ease hearing must be allowed when required by statute or constitution).

1995See In re Implementation of Utility Energy Conservation Improvement Programs, 368 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn.App.1985) (contested case hearing must be allowed when required by statute or constitution).

1990In re Winona County Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, 442 N.W.2d 344, 350 (Minn.Ct.App.1989).

1990In re Winona County Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, 442 N.W.2d 344, 350 (Minn.App.1989).

1990See In Re People’s Cooperative Power Assn., Inc., 447 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 8, 1990).

1990The method of trial is never required except when facts are in dispute. * * * “Where no genuine or material issue of fact is presented the court or administrative body may pass upon the issues of law after according the parties the right of argument.” People’s, 447 N.W.2d at 13 (quoting K.

1988Gregg I, 380 N.W.2d at 151 .

1987This court addressed the issue of the Commissioner’s duty simply “to avoid a multiplicity of suits and endless litigation,” id. at 149 , and determined that the residents were entitled to a contested-case hearing' under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

2015In re Petition of N. States Power Co., 676 N.W.2d 326, 335 (Minn. App. 2004).

2015But the materials relied on by the board and attached to its decision were provided to the city in advance of the second public hearing. 8 The city argues that the board offered no evidence because there had not been a formal introduction of documents into the record, citing In re Application of N. States Power Co., 440 N.W.2d 138, 140-41 (Minn. App. 1989), in which this court reversed a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decision because the administrative law judge (ALJ) relied on a cost study from a prior proceeding that had not been submitted in the contested case hearing record.

2015This court affirmed that “[n]o factual information or evidence shall be considered in the determination of a [contested] case unless it is part of the record.” Id. at 140 (quotation omitted).

2013“Whether an administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority is a question of law that we review de novo.” In re Hubbard, 778 N.W.2d 313, 318 (Minn.2010) (quotation omitted).

2004Vicker v. Starkey, 265 Minn. 464, 470 , 122 N.W.2d 169, 173 (1963). *332 Relator argues that it is entitled to a contested case hearing to determine the socioeconomic and environmental effects of the Manitoba Hydro Project.

2004Vicker v. Starkey, 265 Minn. 464, 470 , 122 N.W.2d 169, 173 (1963). *332 Relator argues that it is entitled to a contested case hearing to determine the socioeconomic and environmental effects of the Manitoba Hydro Project.

2004Solid Waste Incinerator Ash Storage Facility, 459 N.W.2d 922, 923 (Minn.1990) (holding that relator was not entitled to a contested case hearing because relator had not raised sufficient issues of material fact).

2004See In re Deregulation of Installation & Maintenance of Inside Wiling, 420 N.W.2d 650, 655-56 (Minn.App.1988) (stating that since the legislature did not require a contested case hearing under the statute, the court could assume that a contested case hearing is not required in the case of a summary investigation by the Commission).

2004See In re Deregulation of Installation & Maintenance of Inside Wiring, 420 N.W.2d at 655-56 (stating that since the legislature did not require a contested case hearing within Minn.Stat. 237.081, the court could assume that a contested case hearing was not required in the case of a summary investigation by the Commission).

1999See Minnesota Education Ass’n, 499 N.W.2d at 850 (“If the MEA is to challenge the reasonableness of the rule as applied, it may make that challenge in a contested case hearing when the agency seeks to enforce the rule.”).

1993See Minnesota Ass’n of Homes for the Aging, 385 N.W.2d at 68 (contested case hearing, rather than declaratory judgment action, is proper method to challenge rule as applied).

1990The court of appeals acknowledged that Earth Protector “has not made a presentation of evidence that, by itself, would prompt a contested case hearing.” Matter of Air Emission Facility Permit, 450 N.W.2d 617, 620 (Minn.App.1990).

1990City of Winona v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 449 N.W.2d 441, 442 (Minn.1990).

1990Id.

1988Minn.Stat. § 480A.06 (Supp.1987); see EPA Audio Visual, Inc. v. State, 427 N.W.2d 271, 272 (Minn.Ct.App.1988) (jurisdiction extends to final decisions of all agencies regardless of whether a contested case hearing was held).

1988See County of Washington v. A.F.S.C.M.E., Council No. 91, 262 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Minn.1978) (“affidavits of individual legislators are not competent to impeach the text of the enrolled bill”); In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 392 N.W.2d 558, 569 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (legislators’ testimony at a contested case hearing about the intent of the legislature when it enacted bills was inadmissible; "Subsequent testimony by individual legislators regarding legislative intent is inadmissible in construing a statute”).

1988See County of Washington v. A.F.S.C.M.E., Council No. 91, 262 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Minn.1978) (“affidavits of individual legislators are not competent to impeach the text of the enrolled bill”); In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 392 N.W.2d 558, 569 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (legislators’ testimony at a contested case hearing about the intent of the legislature when it enacted bills was inadmissible; "Subsequent testimony by individual legislators regarding legislative intent is inadmissible in construing a statute”).

1986Appellants have a constitutional due process right to a contested case hearing before their discharge since they have “a statutory entitlement,” once admitted, to continue residing in the home, if eligible, and since their discharge involves “state action that adjudicates important rights.” See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491-93 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).

1986Appellants have a constitutional due process right to a contested case hearing before their discharge since they have “a statutory entitlement,” once admitted, to continue residing in the home, if eligible, and since their discharge involves “state action that adjudicates important rights.” See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491-93 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).