Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 256B.11 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ 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
[Repealed, 1976 c 131 s 2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1971–1977 · leading case: Doe v. State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 257 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1977).
Doe v. State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 257 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1977). “1974, § 256B.11. [1] After a hearing, the trial court affirmed the state welfare department's decision denying Doe benefits.”
Polk Cty. v. State Dept. of Pub. Wel., 223 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1974). “” Section 256B.11 limits the scope of review open to the district court in medical assistance appeals to the issue as to whether the order of the state agency was based upon an erroneous theory of law or was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.”
Polk Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 234 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 1975). “be had before this court in the courtroom of the court house in the City of Crookston, Minnesota, on January 30, 1973, commencing at ten o’clock in the forenoon of that day, for the taking of new or additional evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, on each of the above…”
Haight v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Welfare Bd., 191 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. 1971). “The district court, reviewing the order of the commissioner pursuant to § 256B.11, determined that the order of the state agency was not based upon an erroneous theory of law and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.”
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.