Proceedings for review under sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be instituted by serving a petition for a writ of certiorari personally or by certified mail upon the agency and by promptly filing the proof of service in the Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the matter shall proceed in the manner provided by the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
If a request for reconsideration is made within ten days after the decision and order of the agency, the 30-day period provided in section 14.63 shall not begin to run until service of the order finally disposing of the application for reconsideration. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring that an application for reconsideration be filed with and disposed of by the agency as a prerequisite to the institution of a review proceeding under sections 14.63 to 14.68.
Copies of the writ shall be served, personally or by certified mail, upon all parties to the proceeding before the agency in the proceeding in which the order sought to be reviewed was made. For the purpose of service, the agency upon request shall certify to the petitioner the names and addresses of all parties as disclosed by its records. The agency's certification shall be conclusive. The agency and all parties to the proceeding before it shall have the right to participate in the proceedings for review. A copy of the petition shall be provided to the attorney general at the time of service of the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Ramsey v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 12× “"The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner's interest, the facts showing the petitioner is aggrieved and is affected by the decision, and the ground or grounds upon which the petitioner contends that the decision should be reversed or modified.”
In Re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc., 711 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Relator contends that although Minn.Stat. § 14.64 (2004) allows an agency to reconsider its decisions, reconsideration of a license denial is triggered only by a formal request.”
Application of Nw. Bell Tel., 374 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 16× “Minn.Stat. § 14.64 (1984) provides in part: If a request for reconsideration is made within ten days after the decision and order of the agency, the 30-day period provided in section 14.”
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1992) (citations omitted); Minn.Stat. § 14.64, 14.69 (1998). While Breimhorst relied on the availability of appellate review by certiorari in upholding workers' compensation, either route to review may provide some indication of appropriate judicial oversight of an…”
In re the Risk Level Determination of J.M.T., 759 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 14.64. J.M.T. argues that, under Polk County, service is proper so long as the petition is received by the agency because, in that case, the court of appeals equated receipt of a petition by first-class mail with delivery by personal service.”
State v. Sci. Computers, Inc., 384 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “In addition, Minn.Stat. § 14.64 provides: Proceedings for review * * * shall be initiated by serving a petition for writ of certiorari personally or by certified mail upon the agency.”
In Re the License Applications of Polk Cnty. Ambulance Serv., 548 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 14.64. Counsel for both respondents acknowledge receipt of the petition, proposed writ, and statement of the case, and they do not contest their status as representatives for the respondents.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Todd Cnty. Hearings Unit, 356 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 14.64 (1982). The DNR points out that the Hearings Unit does not fit within the Administrative Procedure Act’s definition of an “agency.”
Little v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corr., 773 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 14.64 (2008). There is no dispute that Little made a timely request for reconsideration.”
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.