§
Subdivision 1.Orders, time limit.
All orders in proceedings under this chapter shall be issued within one year from the date of the day of the first hearing thereon provided that the time may be extended for a fixed additional period upon consent of all parties of record. Failure to so order shall be deemed to be an order denying the matter. An appeal may be taken from such failure to so order in the same manner as an appeal from an order as provided in subdivision 2.
§
Subd. 2.Grounds for appeal.
(a) Any person aggrieved by any order issued under this chapter may appeal to the district court upon the following grounds:
(1) that the order was issued without jurisdiction to act;
(2) that the order exceeded the orderer's jurisdiction;
(3) that the order is arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious or oppressive or in unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected; or
(4) that the order is based upon an erroneous theory of law.
(b) The appeal shall be taken in the district court in the county in which the majority of the area affected is located. The appeal shall not stay the effect of the order. All notices and other documents shall be served on both the chief administrative law judge and the attorney general's assistant assigned to the chief administrative law judge for purposes of this chapter.
(c) If the court determines that the action involved is unlawful or unreasonable or is not warranted by the evidence in case an issue of fact is involved, the court may vacate or suspend the action involved, in whole or in part, as the case requires. The matter shall then be remanded for further action in conformity with the decision of the court.
(d) To render a review of an order effectual, the aggrieved person shall file with the court administrator of the district court of the county in which the majority of the area is located, within 30 days of the order, an application for review together with the grounds upon which the review is sought.
(e) An appeal lies from the district court as in other civil cases.
Notes of Decisions
Rockford Twp. v. City of Rockford, 608 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 47× “The district court dismissed the action for failure to apply for judicial review within the 30-day appeal period of Minn.Stat. § 414.07 (1998), and the township appealed.”
Vill. of Farmington v. Minnesota Mun. Comm'n, 170 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1969).
· cites it 12× “Separate appeals from this order were filed in the District Court of Dakota County pursuant to § 414.07 [8] by the village of Farmington, by a majority of the freeholders of the 195 acres of land included in the Farmington annexation petition, and by other landowners in…”
City of Lake Elmo v. City of Oakdale, 468 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “ISSUE Was the Board’s amended order allowing for concurrent detachment from Lake Elmo and annexation to Oakdale of the subject land supported by substantial evidence? ANALYSIS Standard of Review Minn.Stat. § 414.07 (1988) provides the exclusive remedy on appeal from annexation…”
Town of Stillwater v. Minnesota Mun. Comm'n, 219 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. 1974).
· cites it 7× “Because we conclude that a statutory proceeding for judicial review pursuant to § 414.07, subd. 2, is ordinarily the exclusive remedy for challenging commission proceedings and orders requiring commission approval, we reverse and order dismissal of the action for declaratory…”
City of Lake Elmo v. Minnesota Mun. Bd., 474 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “2 (1990) provides that an application for review of a Minnesota municipal board order shall be filed in the district court “within 30 days of the order/’ The trial court concluded the application for review must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the order.”
City of Chaska v. Chaska Twp., 135 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 1965).
· cites it 2× “Section 414.07 provides that an appeal from such an order of the commission to the district court shall be taken in the county in which the majority of the area is located and that, to render such an appeal effectual, the aggrieved person shall file with the clerk of court of…”
Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Mun. Bd., 497 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 414.07, subd. 2 (1990). A reviewing court must decide whether an agency’s decision is based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.”
Town of Eagan, Dakota Cnty. v. Minnesota Mun. Com'n, 130 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 1964).
“As to appeals from the district court to the supreme court, § 414.07 provides: “An appeal lies from the district court to the supreme court in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 605.”
Appeal of Meyer v. Vill. of Waite Park, 152 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. 1967).
“Second, it would appear that on the basis of the affidavits presented by the intervenors and the record of the hearing before the municipal commission, it was clearly proper for the district court to find that this matter involved the public interest; that public convenience and…”
Minn. Stat. § 414.07(2): 1 case
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.