prescribed standard in Minnesota

2017Council, 587 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn. 1999) (identifying as “indi-cia of quasi-judicial actions ... (1) investigation into a disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the. disputed claim”).

2016Quasi-judicial actions include the following: “(1) investigation into a disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim.” Id.

2007“When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the substantial-evidence test.” Hurrle v. County of Sherburne, 594 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Minn.App.1999) (quotation omitted).

2007"When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the substantial-evidence test." Hurrle v. County of Sherburne, 594 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Minn.App.1999) (quotation omitted).

1999A separate concurrence in Meath proposed an additional indicator that further sharpened the analysis. 6 An agency performs a quasi-judicial function when it “applies a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion that affects the legal interests of the persons before it * * *.” Id. at 280 .

1999When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially); see also Town of Grant v. Washington County, 319 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn.1982); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414 (Minn.1981) (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Roch

2009“The modern tendency is to be more liberal in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officers in order to facilitate the administration of laws as the complexity of economic and governmental conditions increase.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-12 , 126 N.W.2d 778, 780-81 (1964) (footnote omitted). [W]here the act relates to the administration of a police regulation which is necessary to protect the general health, welfare, and safety of the public — it is not essential that a specific prescribed standard be expressly stated in the legislation. .

2009“The modern tendency is to be more liberal in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officers in order to facilitate the administration of laws as the complexity of economic and governmental conditions increase.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-12 , 126 N.W.2d 778, 780-81 (1964) (footnote omitted). [W]here the act relates to the administration of a police regulation which is necessary to protect the general health, welfare, and safety of the public — it is not essential that a specific prescribed standard be expressly stated in the legislation. .

2017“We. review a quasi-judicial decision rendered by a city under a limited and nonintrusive standard of review.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627, 635 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also Gustafson v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 884 N.W.2d 674, 686 (Minn. App. 2016) (stating that certiorari review of quasi-judicial decision “seeks to ‘minimize the judicial intrusion into administrative decision-making' and to ‘avoid usurpation of the executive body’s .administrative prerogatives’ ” (quoting Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 2005))).

2017“We. review a quasi-judicial decision rendered by a city under a limited and nonintrusive standard of review.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627, 635 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also Gustafson v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 884 N.W.2d 674, 686 (Minn. App. 2016) (stating that certiorari review of quasi-judicial decision “seeks to ‘minimize the judicial intrusion into administrative decision-making' and to ‘avoid usurpation of the executive body’s .administrative prerogatives’ ” (quoting Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 2005))).

2017“We. review a quasi-judicial decision rendered by a city under a limited and nonintrusive standard of review.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627, 635 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also Gustafson v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 884 N.W.2d 674, 686 (Minn. App. 2016) (stating that certiorari review of quasi-judicial decision “seeks to ‘minimize the judicial intrusion into administrative decision-making' and to ‘avoid usurpation of the executive body’s .administrative prerogatives’ ” (quoting Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 2005))).

2017The three characteristics of a quasi-judicial decision are “(1) an investigation into a disputed claim and the weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) the application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding a disputed claim.” Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, 868 N.W.2d 655, 662 (Minn. 2015), cert. denied 136 S. Ct. 849 (2016).

2016“An irregularity is a failure to adhere to a prescribed rule or method of procedure not amounting to an error in a ruling on a matter of law.” Boschee v. Duevel, 530 N.W.2d 834, 840 (Minn. App. 1995) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1995).

2001The in-dicia of quasi-judicial actions are "(1) investigation into a disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim.” Maye v. University of Minnesota, 615 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn.App.2000) (quoting Minnesota Ctr. for Envtl.

1999When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially); see also Town of Grant v. Washington County, 319 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn.1982); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414 (Minn.1981) (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Roch

1999When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially); see also Town of Grant v. Washington County, 319 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn.1982); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414 (Minn.1981) (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Roch

1999I The starting point for our review is “the proceedings before the decision-making body.” Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn.1993).

1999When an agency performs the quasi-judicial function of receiving and weighing evidence, making factual findings, and applying a prescribed standard to reach a conclusion, a reviewing court applies the “substantial-evidence test.” Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Minn.1996) (Anderson, J., concurring specially); see also Town of Grant v. Washington County, 319 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn.1982); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414 (Minn.1981) (greater scrutiny examines “whether the evidence provides a substantial basis for the decision.”); State by the Roch

1986Add to this the further obstacle that it is the policy of the law to look with disfavor on attempts to invade the jury’s internal process of decision to impeach verdicts except in relatively rare instances. 590 S.W.2d at 877 (footnote omitted). 10 .