Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 216. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 216.25 (2026)

Appeals

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

Any party to a contested case before the commission may appeal from the decision and order of the commission in accordance with chapter 14.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1946–1997 · leading case: State & Port Auth. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 22 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1946).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State & Port Auth. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 22 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1946). · cites it 16× “If it shall be determined that the order is unlawful or unreasonable, it shall be vacated and set aside.”
State & Port Auth. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 39 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1949). · cites it 7× “Its appellate function embraces no power of revision, but only the judicial power of review to determine for itself, after an examination of the entire matter in controversy as to both questions of fact and law, whether the commission’s findings of fact, upon which its order…”
Cnty. of Ramsey v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 6× “There we held the scope of review standard of the Administrative Procedure Act superseded the scope of review set forth in the earlier-enacted section 216.25, because the two provisions, plainly, were in direct and irreconcilable conflict.”
Dahlen Transp., Inc. v. Hahne, 112 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. 1961). · cites it 8× “" The governing statute with respect to appeal from an order of the *222 commission granting such authority is § 216.25, [1] which, as far as pertinent here, reads: "* * * Such findings of fact [of the commission] shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated, and…”
Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co. v. St. Paul Terminal Warehouse Co., 180 N.W.2d 175 (Minn. 1970). · cites it 3× “Without reviewing the host of cases which have interpreted and applied § 216.25 to define the function of the district court in reviewing the evidentiary support for factual findings of the commission, it can fairly be said that prior to the Dahlen case the rule most generally…”
Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 58 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1953). · cites it 5× “” *293 • We think the only feasible rule is that, when an order of the commission is set aside and vacated by the court upon an appeal under § 216.25, the matter stands before the commission exactly as if no order had been made and that, with or without an order remanding the…”
Quinn Distrib. Co. v. Quast Transfer, Inc., 181 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. 1970). · cites it 3× “Until recently, there was some confusion as to whether review was controlled by that statute or by § 216.25, which provides procedures for appeals to the district court from orders of the Public Service Commission.”
St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Minnesota Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1977). “0425(e) governs the scope of review of commission orders rather than the ‘any evidence’ standard derived from § 216.25 as interpreted in Dahlen Transport, Inc.”
Petition of Inter-City Gas Corp., 389 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 216.25, 216B.27 and 216B.52, no interim rate schedule ordered by the commission pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to an application for a rehearing or an appeal to a court until the commission has rendered its final…”
Minneapolis Street Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 86 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1957). · cites it 2× “” Section 216.25 provides that such findings of fact shall be prima facie evidence of all matters therein, and the burden of proof upon all issues raised by the appeal shall be on the appellant.”
Application of Minnegasco, 556 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “Prior to 1983, appeals from the MPUC proceeded to the district court, which had the authority to “vaeate[] and set aside” an MPUC order, upon a determination that the rates set by the order were unreasonable and unlawful.”
Twin City Motor Bus Co. v. Rechtzigel, 38 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 1949). · cites it 2× “' The jurisdiction of the district court on appeal is set forth in § 216.25, which provides in part as follows: *203 “* * * the district court shall have jurisdiction over the appeal and the same shall be entered upon the records of the district court and shall be tried therein…”
Show all 22 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.