Minn. Stat. § 14.57
Citing Cases (35)
Minnesota Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Surveillance and Integrity Review (SIRS) Appeals by Trinity Home Health Care Services and Etyane ... · 2023 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Todd Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2014 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota · 2001 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · 1989 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
L.K. v. Gregg · 1988 1 citation
On August 28,1984, four of the veterans filed an action in Hennepin County District Court challenging the transfer/discharge proceedings. The veterans alleged, inter alia, that the inadequate notice received and the procedures proposed violated their rights under Minnesota statutes and would deprive them of due process of law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. The veterans further alleged that they were entitled to a hearing, under due process, prior to their transfer/discharge under the fourteenth amendment. Finally, they claimed that, under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act, Minn. Stat. § 14.02, subd. 3 (1984) (MAPA), the hearing required by the constitution must be a contested case hearing under MAPA, Minn. Stat. § 14.57, et seq. (1984). The veterans sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including: a declaration that the lack of proper procedures and the inadequate notice violated their federal due process rights; an order that respondents grant contested case hearings prior to discharge; a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting discharge/transfer until rules had been promulgated and contested case hearings held; and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982). The complaint did not specifically allege that relief was requested pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
Henry v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · 1986 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership · 1984 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
Hymanson v. City of St. Paul · 1983 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
City of Eden Prairie v. Travis R. Serafin, Relator, Public Employees Retirement Association, ... · 2024 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing · 2019 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In re Minn. Living Assistance, Inc. · 2018 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In the Matter of the Athlete Agent Application of Donald Walthal.l · 2017 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of: Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, Decedent. · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2013 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In the Matter of Petition of N. St. Power · 2004 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re the City of Owatonna's NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance · 2004 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Sleepy Eye Care Center v. Commissioner of Human Services · 1998 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re the Alleged Labor Law Violation of Chafoulias Management Co. · 1997 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Rodne v. Commissioner of Human Services · 1996 1 citation
In a letter written in response to Rodne’s request for reconsideration, the Commissioner stated that the DHS had determined that the information gathered during the investigation is accurate and complete. The Commissioner also stated that Rodne has the right to appeal this determination to the Commissioner of Administration under Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4 (1994) and Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57 to 14.62 (1994).
Counties of Blue Earth v. Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry · 1992 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Matter of Kandiyohi Co-Op. Elec. Power · 1990 1 citation
III. Willmar argues that even under the MPUC's construction of the phrase "receiving electric service," a contested case hearing should have been held to determine whether Kandiyohi's facilities were capable of serving the area. Willmar claims two issues of fact should have been resolved in a contested case hearing: (1) whether Kandiyohi's overhead distribution line running along the south line of Lot 1 Block 1, which was not equipped with transformers, was capable of providing service; and (2) whether Kandiyohi's overhead and three-phase distribution lines had the capacity to provide service to the area in the "near" future. "An agency shall initiate a contested case proceeding when one is required by law." Minn. Stat. § 14.57 (1988). Willmar argues Minn.Rule 7830.3000, subpt. 4 (1989) requires a contested case hearing to determine whether Kandiyohi had facilities capable of serving the annexed area. The *106 provisions of that rule, however, govern procedures for various types of hearings, including contested case hearings, and does not itself entitle Willmar to a contested case hearing. Willmar also argues that due process requires a record and factual findings sufficient to allow appellate review. See Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 364 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Minn.App.1985). Willmar claims the MPUC was required to conduct a contested case hearing and make additional findings of fact regarding the capability of Kandiyohi's facilities to serve the assigned area. The facts regarding the existence of Kandiyohi's facilities are, however, undisputed. As the MPUC concluded in its order denying reconsideration: Installing transformers on utility poles is a routine, inexpensive, and speedy procedure. It would not be reasonable to require a utility to show transformer-equipped poles to demonstrate its ability to serve an area. To do so would require utilities to either burden ratepayers with the expense of installing unnecessary transformers throughout their service areas or to subject ratepayers to the financial risks of overcapacity when areas included in long-range planning were transferred without compensation to municipal utilities. The Commission concludes the absence of transformers on utility poles at issue does not create a genuine issue of material fact. * * * * * * The relevant question is whether the displaced utility has facilities in place capable of serving the area. Answering this question does not require an examination of either utility's long-term capacity needs or of the long-term service needs of the area in question. The only issue is whether the utility the municipality seeks to displace can provide service to the area in the near term while compensation issues are being resolved. Even the City has not suggested that Kandiyohi cannot serve the residential customer currently in the area or other residential customers who may locate in the housing development while compensation issues are being resolved. * * * * * * Issues of present and future capacity and present and future need are examined in detail in compensation proceedings. Willmar also argues a contested case hearing was mandated by Minn. Stat. § 216B.43. Upon * * * complaint by an affected utility that the provisions of sections 216B.39 to 216B.42 [governing assigned areas] have been violated, the commission shall hold a hearing * * *. Id. The legislature's use of the term "hearing" may mandate a contested case hearing where material issues of fact remain to be resolved. See In Re People's Cooperative Power Assn., Inc., 447 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 8, 1990). Again, however, we believe a contested case hearing was unnecessary in this case because there were no material facts in dispute. The method of trial is never required except when facts are in dispute. * * * "Where no genuine or material issue of fact is presented the court or administrative body may pass upon the issues of law after according the parties the right of argument." People's, 447 N.W.2d at 13 (quoting K. Davis, Administrative Law Text at 159 (3rd Ed.1972) (citation omitted)). The MPUC had before it all of the facts necessary to determine whether Kandiyohi's facilities were capable of providing electric service to the area, pending a determination by Willmar whether it wished to purchase Kandiyohi's facilities and serve the area. If Willmar decides to purchase Kandiyohi's facilities, a contested case hearing may be necessary to determine who should serve new customers in the area until an agreement is reached regarding the terms and conditions of the purchase. See People's, 447 N.W.2d at 12.
In re the Complaint by Kandiyohi Cooperative Electric Power Ass'n · 1990 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re Complaint of People's Cooperative Power Ass'n · 1989 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander · 1988 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
St. Otto's Home v. Department of Human Services · 1988 1 citation
The two nursing homes sought to be classified as “hospital-attached nursing homes” under Minn.Rules 9549.0020, subp. 26 (1985) in order to be subject to higher rate limits than free-standing homes. Department rate-setting auditors denied that status and the two nursing homes appealed the denial under Minn. Stat. § 14.57 (1985). The department initiated a contested case proceeding pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.-57- 62 (1985). An evidentiary hearing was conducted in April 1987, and the administrative law judge issued his report on June 30, 1987, recommending that the department decision be upheld. After the two nursing homes filed exceptions, the Deputy Commissioner modified the judge’s rationale in further favor of the department and agreed with the decision to deny hospital-attached status.
Voettiner v. Commissioner of Education · 1985 1 citation
“An agency shall initiate a contested ease proceeding when one is required by law.” Minn. Stat. § 14.57 (1984). A contested case is:
Blanding v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. · 1985 2 citations
Chapter 82, 1975 Minnesota Laws, and Chapter 363 of the Minnesota Statutes (The Human Rights Act) Another possible statutory basis for jurisdiction is constructed by a combined reading of special legislation and the Minneapolis ordinance. A 1975 special law gives the Minneapolis City Council the "power" to: grant to any Minneapolis human rights, human relations, or civil rights commission, department, or director, any and all powers and duties which are granted by Minnesota Statutes 1974, Chapter 363, to any state human rights, human relations, or civil rights commissioner, department, or state board. Act of May 2, 1975, ch. 82, § 1, 1975 Minn. Laws 321 (not codified). Chapter 363 (the Human Rights Act) provides: [A] person aggrieved by a final decision of the department [of human rights] reached after a hearing held pursuant to § 363.071 may seek judicial review in accordance with chapter 14. Minn. Stat. § 363.072, subd. 1 (Supp.1983). If we did not apply the general requirement of statewide jurisdiction discussed above, and if a right to obtain judicial review is considered to be a "power," then the authority that derives from the 1975 special law would arguably give this court jurisdiction "prescribed by law" to hear appeals from decisions of the local agency. This interpretation fails, however, for several reasons. Minn. Stat. § 363.072 speaks of review of a decision "reached after a hearing held pursuant to § 363.071." Although the Commission's hearing is not literally pursuant to § 363.071, a functional equivalent to the statutory requirements should be sufficient. Section 363.071 incorporates by reference all of the contested case proceeding provisions of the Minnesota APA, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57-.62 (formerly §§ 15.0418-.0422). The APA provides a complete framework designed to assure a meaningful and fair a hearing for the aggrieved party and a complete record for the appellate court. Initially, the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission does appear to provide procedures for a sufficient hearing. The ordinance provides for a hearing on civil rights complaints "in accordance with Chapter 15 [now renumbered to §§ 14.01-.70] of Minnesota Statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act." Minneapolis, Minn., Code § 141.50(j)(1) (1982). After referring to the APA, however, the Minneapolis Code departs from the APA requirements and sets forth a separate hearing procedure that varies materially from the APA hearing *795 procedure. For example, a Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission hearing examiner need not fulfill the APA hearing examiner requirements designed to insure a neutral and objective fact-finder ("All hearing examiners shall have demonstrated knowledge of administrative procedures and shall be free of any political or economic association that would impair their ability to function officially in a fair and objective manner." Minn. Stat. § 14.48). The person presiding at a Commission hearing, in contrast, is picked from the members of the commission, Minneapolis, Minn., Code § 141.50(h), and is required to be "known to favor the principles of equal opportunity, nondiscrimination and the objectives of [the Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance]," id., § 141.20. Because of the different hearing procedures, a hearing before the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission is not the literal or functional equivalent of a "hearing held pursuant to § 363.071," and therefore Ch. 82, § 1, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction "prescribed by law" on this court to hear appeals from the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In Re the Implementation of Utility Energy Conservation Improvement Programs · 1985 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
In re Crestview Manor, Inc. · 1985 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
State ex rel. Humphrey v. Columbia Pacific University · 1984 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching · 1984 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare · 1984 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.