§Subdivision 1.Admissibility.
In contested cases agencies may admit and give probative effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. They shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. They may exclude incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial and repetitious evidence.
§Subd. 2.Made part of record.
All evidence, including records and documents containing information classified by law as not public, in the possession of the agency of which it desires to avail itself or which is offered into evidence by a party to a contested case proceeding, shall be made a part of the hearing record of the case. No factual information or evidence shall be considered in the determination of the case unless it is part of the record. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference. When the hearing record contains information which is not public, the administrative law judge or the agency may conduct a closed hearing to discuss the information, issue necessary protective orders, and seal all or part of the hearing record.
§Subd. 3.Cross-examination of witnesses.
Every party or agency shall have the right of cross-examination of witnesses who testify, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence.
§Subd. 4.Official notice.
Agencies may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and in addition may take notice of general, technical, or scientific facts within their specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified in writing either before or during hearing, or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, or by oral statement in the record, of the material so noticed, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. Agencies may utilize their experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in the evaluation of the evidence in the hearing record.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota, 624 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 10× “Although the agency decision-maker may not consider evidence that has not been made part of the record in the determination of the case, see Minn.Stat. § 14.60, subd. 2 (2000), agencies may “utilize their experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in the…”
Padilla v. Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 382 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 16× “He contends (1) his due process rights were violated because the Board applied the evidentiary rules for use in contested cases, Minn.Stat. § 14.60, subd. 1, rather than the Rules of Evidence; (2) the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act precludes the admission of evidence…”
Minneapolis Police Dep't v. Kelly, 776 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 14.60(e), (f). NOTES [1] The Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights provides administrative services for the commission.”
Petition of N. States Power Co., 416 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, it claims it gave sufficient notice to comply with Minn.Stat. § 14.60, subd. 4 (1986). NSP argues that notice to meet the demands of that statute is proper only when it specifically notifies parties of the Commission’s intent to administratively notice nonrecord…”
N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 414 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Presumably, by specifically addressing the nature of a conflict as it might arise in proceedings pending before the Department of Public Service and its commission, the legislature has intended that, in the first instance, it is that body which must confront and resolve claimed…”
Application of N. States Power Co., 440 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “While the Commission was not bound by the parties’ stipulation, any other evidence which the Commission wished to consider should have been made a part of the record: All evidence * * * in the possession of the agency of which it desires to avail itself or which is offered into…”
Kollmorgen v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 416 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 14.60, subd. 4 (1986). But where the agency is examining evidence already contained in the record, it may use the ‘‘experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge” of its members to evaluate the evidence in the record before it.”
Schumann v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 367 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 14.60 (1984). Schumann also argues that because the sentencing guidelines for criminal offenses do not take into account felonies more than ten years old, see Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 11(B)(1)(e), 11(B) comment II.”
Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Mun. Bd., 497 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Minn.Stat. § 14.60, subd. 2 (1990) provides that “[djocumentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference.”
— Minn. Stat. § 14.60(e) — 1 case
Minneapolis Police Dep't v. Kelly, 776 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Minn.Stat. § 14.60(e), (f). NOTES [1] The Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights provides administrative services for the commission.”
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.