Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dietz v. Dodge Countygreen2 sentences2003Because no statute specifically permits an appeal from an administrative decision to terminate the employment of a university employee, “certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1998) is the only method available for review of a university decision.” Shaw, 594 N.W.2d at 191 (citing Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 239 ). 1995Accordingly, for the several reasons articulated in Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237 (Minn.1992), we hold that the actions of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission at issue here are reviewable only by writ of certiorari. 3 *405 The time to petition for a 'writ of certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1992) having long since expired, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action. | 2 | 4 |
Shaw v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesotagreen2 sentences2003Because no statute specifically permits an appeal from an administrative decision to terminate the employment of a university employee, “certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1998) is the only method available for review of a university decision.” Shaw, 594 N.W.2d at 191 (citing Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 239 ). 2000In Shaw v. Board of Regents, we held that: “certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1998) is the only method available for review of a university decision.” Shaw v. Board of Regents, 594 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn.App.1999). | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Smithgreen1 sentence2016Williams v. Smith, 820 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn. 2012); Brenny v. Bd. of Regents, 813 N.W.2d 417 , 420–21 (Minn. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heightsgreen2 sentences2016We have held that review of certain decisions of local government entities are subject to review only by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari. 2 See, e.g., Cty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn.2012); see also Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals” for a writ of certiorari). 2016We have held that review of certain decisions of local government entities are subject to review only by certiorari under Minn. Stat. § 606.01 , which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the 6 court of appeals over petitions for a writ of certiorari.2 See, e.g., Cty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn. 2012); see also Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (stating that parties “shall apply to the Court of Appeals” for a writ of certiorari). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Occupational License of Haymesgreen1 sentence2012As with any state agency, judicial review of the University’s administrative and quasi-judicial decisions is both limited and deferential, and under separation of powers principles, the exclusive method of review is by certiorari pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (2010). 2 See Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 129, 134 (Minn.2005) (explaining that this court has “developed a body of case law treating the writ of certiorari as an extraordinary remedy that allows appellate review” of quasi-judicial decisions); In re Haymes, 444 N.W.2d 257, 259 (Minn.1989) (“Where no right of discret | 1 | 1 |
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail Countygreen1 sentence2012As with any state agency, judicial review of the University’s administrative and quasi-judicial decisions is both limited and deferential, and under separation of powers principles, the exclusive method of review is by certiorari pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (2010). 2 See Dead Lake Ass’n v. Otter Tail Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 129, 134 (Minn.2005) (explaining that this court has “developed a body of case law treating the writ of certiorari as an extraordinary remedy that allows appellate review” of quasi-judicial decisions); In re Haymes, 444 N.W.2d 257, 259 (Minn.1989) (“Where no right of discret | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. County of Sherburnegreen1 sentence2000Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Willis v. County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Minn.1996), this court held that petitions for writ of certiorari are appropriate when an employee raises a “pure breach of contract” claim. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Ultraflex Enterprises'appealgreen1 sentence1997See In re Ultraflex Enters., 494 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn.App.1992) (quasi-judicial decisions of local governmental actors are reviewable by certiorari pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 606.01). | 1 | 1 |
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11green1 sentence1990No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Minn.1990) (record hearing not prerequisite to .certiorari review under Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Plunkett v. First National Bank of Austingreen2 sentences1987In these circumstances judicial review is provided by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01, Plunkett v. First National Bank of Austin, 262 Minn. 231, 248 , 115 N.W.2d 235, 246 (1962), which provides: No writ of certiorari shall be issued, to correct any proceeding, unless such writ shall be issued within 60 days after the party applying for such writ shall have received due notice of the proceeding sought to be reviewed thereby. 1987In these circumstances judicial review is provided by certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01, Plunkett v. First National Bank of Austin, 262 Minn. 231, 248 , 115 N.W.2d 235, 246 (1962), which provides: No writ of certiorari shall be issued, to correct any proceeding, unless such writ shall be issued within 60 days after the party applying for such writ shall have received due notice of the proceeding sought to be reviewed thereby. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brenny v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
green
1 sentence2016Williams v. Smith, 820 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn. 2012); Brenny v. Bd. of Regents, 813 N.W.2d 417 , 420–21 (Minn. App. 2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge
green
1 sentence2012The 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, 693 N.W.2d at 429 ; see also Dietz v. Dodge Cnty., 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.1992) (“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.”) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.