Any party to a proceeding before the commission or the attorney general may make and perfect an appeal from the order in accordance with chapter 14.
If the court finds from an examination of the record that the commission erroneously rejected evidence which should have been admitted, it shall remand the proceedings to the commission with instructions to receive the evidence rejected and any rebutting evidence and make new findings and return them to the court for further review. In such case the commission, after notice to the parties in interest, shall proceed to rehear the matter in controversy, and receive the wrongfully rejected evidence and any rebutting evidence offered and make new findings, as upon the original hearing, and transmit it and the new record, properly certified, to the court of appeals, whereupon the matter shall be again considered in the court in the same manner as in an original appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Ramsey v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 44× “The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued orders in this telephone rate proceeding, and those dissatisfied with the orders then perfected appeals and notices of appearance in those appeals to the Ramsey County District Court under Minn.Stat. § 237.25 (1980). The district…”
Kilowatt Org. (TKO), Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, Plan. & Dev., 336 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 237.25 (1978), originally enacted before the Administrative Procedure Act, allowed the district court to remand only if the “department erroneously rejected evidence * * Minn.”
State v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 246 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1976).
· cites it 3× “0425 applies to judicial review of telephone rate proceedings so that the powers conferred in § 237.25 are cumulative rather than exclusive.”
Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State, 216 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Section 237.25 deals with the trial court’s scope of review.”
St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Minnesota Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1977).
“0425, by its terms applicable to ‘any proceedings for judicial review by any court of decisions of any agency,’ could be construed as manifesting a legislative intention that this general enactment prevail over the negative implications of § 237.25. Such a principle of statutory…”
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 304 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The company relies on Minn.Stat. § 237.25 (1980), which provides in part: “Any party to a proceeding before the department [of Public Service] or the attorney general may make and perfect an appeal from such order [any order of the Commission under the provisions of ch.”
Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access, 532 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
“We are asked to decide whether the Commission violated the constitution, exceeded its authority, engaged in unlawful procedures, or acted arbitrarily when it issued the orders in Docket 697.”
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.