Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2026)
Scope Of Judicial Review
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In a judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68, the 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 rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or
(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or
(d) affected by other error of law; or
(e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 429
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Minnesota Ctr. for Env't Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002).
Minnesota Ctr. for Env't Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002). “Since Reserve Mining, the legislature has codified the standard of review for agency's decisions in contested case proceedings in the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) at Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2000). However, the MPCA's decision was not the result of a contested case…”
Conga Corp., d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Comm'r of Revenue, Relator., 868 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 2015). “The tax court turned first to the Commissioner’s decision to conduct an indirect’ audit, and concluded that the Commissioner’s authority to do so should be reviewed under the standard set forth in a provision of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), Minn.Stat. §…”
In re Minnesota Power for Auth. to Increase Rates for Elec. Serv. in Minnesota, 838 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 2013). “Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2012). 3 Minnesota Power generally argues that the Commission’s determination of exigency must be reversed because the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under Minn.”
Webster v. Hennepin Cnty., 910 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 2018). “Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2016). 6 I. We begin with whether the County had "established procedures" to "insure" an appropriate and prompt response to Webster's government-data request.”
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). “Standard of Review Review of agency decisions following a contested case hearing is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2002). The ALJ's report is ordinarily not binding on the agency.”
Mammenga v. State Dep't of Human Servs., 442 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1989). “The standard of judicial review in a contested case is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988). Under this statute, the court may, among other specified grounds, decide whether an administrative decision is in violation of a constitutional provision, is in excess of statutory…”
Lakeland Tool & Eng'g, Inc. v. Engle, 450 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). "Employment" is defined as "service * * * by an individual who is a servant under the law of master and servant or who performs services for any employing unit, unless such services are performed by an independent contractor.”
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Cent. Pub. Schs. No. 2134, 883 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2016). “; see also Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2014) (“[T]he [reviewing] 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 rights of the petitioner[ ] may have been prejudiced — ”).”
Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 859 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “fishing on Mille Lacs Lake, petitioners assert that the rule is invalid because: (1) the administrative record does not reference or discuss the relevance of article XIII, section 12, of the Minnesota Constitution (the Preservation Provision) or the public-trust doctrine, and…”
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 731 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 2007). “The MCEA also asserts that the MPCA's issuance of the NPDES permit was "affected by error of law," see Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d) (2006), [7] because the permit was issued "contrary to the plain language of federal regulation" and, therefore, this appeal presents a question of law…”
Erickson v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs. for the State, 494 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “" See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e). The BCSSA bases its claim of noncooperation by appellant exclusively on the presumption, treated by the agency as conclusive, that since both men named by appellant were excluded by allegedly valid blood tests, appellant is not cooperating.”
In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Serv. Territory of People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 470 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988) (scope of judicial review).”
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(a): 5 cases
Mattice v. Minnesota Prop. Ins. Placement, 655 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re the City of Owatonna's NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance, 672 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Am. Iron & Supply Co., 604 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
City of Minneapolis v. State, 604 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
Sleepy Eye Care Ctr. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 572 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(b): 12 cases
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). “Standard of Review Review of agency decisions following a contested case hearing is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2002). The ALJ's report is ordinarily not binding on the agency.”
Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. 1984).
Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist., 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Byers, 545 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
In Re the Appeal of Jongquist, 460 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(c): 1 case
Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Health, 375 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d): 24 cases
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 731 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 2007). “The MCEA also asserts that the MPCA's issuance of the NPDES permit was "affected by error of law," see Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d) (2006), [7] because the permit was issued "contrary to the plain language of federal regulation" and, therefore, this appeal presents a question of law…”
In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Serv. Territory of People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 470 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988) (scope of judicial review).”
In Re the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1989).
Montella v. City of Ottertail, 633 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Paper v. Rent-A-Wreck, 463 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e): 46 cases
Webster v. Hennepin Cnty., 910 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 2018). “Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2016). 6 I. We begin with whether the County had "established procedures" to "insure" an appropriate and prompt response to Webster's government-data request.”
Lakeland Tool & Eng'g, Inc. v. Engle, 450 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). "Employment" is defined as "service * * * by an individual who is a servant under the law of master and servant or who performs services for any employing unit, unless such services are performed by an independent contractor.”
Erickson v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs. for the State, 494 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “" See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e). The BCSSA bases its claim of noncooperation by appellant exclusively on the presumption, treated by the agency as conclusive, that since both men named by appellant were excluded by allegedly valid blood tests, appellant is not cooperating.”
Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1984).
Minneapolis Police Dep't v. Kelly, 776 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e)(f): 1 case
Erickson v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs. for the State, 494 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “" See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e). The BCSSA bases its claim of noncooperation by appellant exclusively on the presumption, treated by the agency as conclusive, that since both men named by appellant were excluded by allegedly valid blood tests, appellant is not cooperating.”
Minn. Stat. § 14.69(f): 12 cases
CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Erickson v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Human Servs. for the State, 494 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “" See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e). The BCSSA bases its claim of noncooperation by appellant exclusively on the presumption, treated by the agency as conclusive, that since both men named by appellant were excluded by allegedly valid blood tests, appellant is not cooperating.”
In Re Occupational License of Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 494 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
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.