Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 14. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 14.63 (2026)

Application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision under the provisions of sections 14.63 to 14.68, but nothing in sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A petition for a writ of certiorari by an aggrieved person for judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68 must be filed with the court of appeals and served on all parties to the contested case not more than 30 days after the party receives the final decision and order of the agency. Sections 572B.01 to 572B.31 govern judicial review of arbitration awards entered under section 14.57.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Cnty. of Ramsey v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cnty. of Ramsey v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 72× “Minn.Stat. § 14.63 provides that within the 30-day appeal period the petition " must be filed with the district court and served on the agency.”
In Re the Denial of Eller Media Co.'s Applications for Outdoor Advert. Device Permits in the City of Mounds View, 664 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (2002), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) filed exceptions to that decision, and all parties requested oral argument before the Commissioner of MNDOT (commissioner).”
In Re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc., 711 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Further, relator contends that Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (2004) requires a formal written request with written notice of the grounds for a proposed reconsideration to satisfy due process.”
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. §§ 14.63 ("Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision * * *.”
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corr. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “1983); Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (Supp.1983). The legislature may want to consider placing appeals from decisions of the Veteran's Preference Board under the umbrella of the Administrative Procedure Act so that the due process requirements of the Act are applicable and so that those…”
In Re the Speed Limit for the Union Pac. R.R. Ex Rel. City of Shakopee, 610 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Union Pacific argues that because the com *682 missioner’s imposition of a speed limit was a quasi-legislative action, an appeal cannot properly proceed by writ of certiorari under Minn.Stat. §§ 14.63 to 14.68 (1998). We disagree.”
Kilowatt Org. (TKO), Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, Plan. & Dev., 336 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 13× “Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (1982) provides: Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision under the provisions of sections 14.”
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Cent. Pub. Schs. No. 2134, 883 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 2× “’s 6-week expulsion on the “willful violation” statutory ground.”
Meath v. Harmful Substance Comp. Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63 -.68 (1994). But Meath did not participate in a contested case before the HSCB and, therefore, the judicial review provisions of the MAPA were not available to her.”
Cable Commc'ns Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Commc'ns P'ship, 356 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (1982). The court more readily finds a right to a hearing for purposes of allowing judicial review under MAPA than for initiation of a contested case hearing because of the presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action.”
In Re Complaint Against the Sandy Pappas Senate Comm., 488 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 4× “63 (1990): “Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision ****’’ Doty contends that as a result of what he asserts is the Board’s improper interpretation of the provisions of chapter 10A, its assessment of the extent…”
Matter of Ultraflex Enter.'appeal, 494 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (1990). Section 14.63 governs certiorari appeals from “contested cases.”
Show all 118 citing cases →
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.