Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 125A.09 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1Sp2003 c 9 art 3 s 21]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1999–2008 · leading case: E.N. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 603 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
E.N. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 603 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Minn.Stat. § 125A.09, subd. 10 (1998). The APA provides for the following scope of review of an administrative decision: [T]he court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial…”
M.M. Ex Rel. L.R. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2008). “” Minn.Stat. § 125A.09, subd. 6 (2000). 4 We therefore held that “challenges to the student’s previous education become moot because the new school district is responsible for providing a due process hearing.”
CJN Ex Rel. SKN v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003). “Under Minnesota law, the HO decision is conducted by the school district, Minn. Stat. § 125A.09, subd. 6, which is considered only a local education agency and not a state education agency, see Minn.”
In Re Chisago Lakes Sch. Dist., 690 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “In 2003, Minn.Stat. § 125A.09 was repealed and replaced by Minn.”
M.M. v. Special Sch. Dist. (8th Cir. 2008). “As the ALJ and the district court noted, our prior cases involved students who were no longer attending school in the school district when the due process hearing was requested.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.