Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 216B.52 (2026)

Appeal

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

Subdivision 1.Appeal under Administrative Procedure Act.

Any party to a proceeding before the commission or any other person, aggrieved by a decision and order and directly affected by it, may appeal from the decision and order of the commission in accordance with chapter 14.

Subd. 2.

[Repealed, 1983 c 247 s 219]

Subd. 3.

[Repealed, 1983 c 247 s 219]

Subd. 4.

[Repealed, 1983 c 247 s 219]

Subd. 5.

[Repealed, 1983 c 247 s 219]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: In Re the Implementation of Util. Energy Conservation Improvement Programs, 368 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
In Re the Implementation of Util. Energy Conservation Improvement Programs, 368 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52 (1984). Two categories of persons are eligible to appeal.”
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. N. States Power Co., 360 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 1 (Supp.1983), provides the procedure for appealing PUC actions: Any party to a proceeding before the commission or any other person, aggrieved by a decision and order and directly affected by it, may appeal from the decision and order of the…”
N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 344 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “It concluded that FERC’s approval of the amended CA was not a valid wholesale rate and therefore was not binding on the MPUC. In essence, the MPUC was of the opinion the CA was merely an allocation of costs between the two utilities.”
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 334 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 4× “An application to the PUC for a rehearing was denied in an order dated January 5, 1982, and, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 5 (1982), an appeal was then made to the Lake County District Court.”
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Elec. Coop., 303 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “The order of the commission may be reviewed as provided in section 216B.52. Commission expenses arising out of the exercise of its jurisdiction under this section shall be assessed to the municipality.”
In Re Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Serv. Territory of Peoples Coop. Power Ass'n by the City of Rochester, 430 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 1 (1986). The APA is silent on the need for surety endorsements.”
In Re a Complaint Against N. States Power Co. Ex Rel. Fusion Coatings, Inc., 447 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 216B.52 (1988). While chapter 14 provides that the time for appeal is stayed by a timely petition for reconsideration, it does not require such a petition “as a prerequisite to the institution of a review proceeding under sections 14.”
Petition of Minnesota Power, 545 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52 (1994). Pursuant to the administrative procedure act, this court may reverse or modify the MPUC’s decision only if it is: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (c) Made…”
In Re N. States Power Co., 775 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “*656 Minn.Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 1 (2008). The Administrative Procedure Act states that a reviewing court may reverse an agency’s decision if it concludes that the agency’s actions were: (a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) in excess of the statutory authority…”
In Re an Investigation Into the Comm'n's Jurisdiction Over the Hutchinson's Intrastate Nat. Gas Pipeline, 707 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52, snbd. 1 (2004), provides that an appeal from a decision and order of the MPUC may be commenced according to the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Application of Minnegasco, 556 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “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.”
In re Minnesota Power, 807 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.52 (2010). Under the APA, this court can 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…”
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.