Opinions Archive

 2013

• 67-0400-22359 In the Matter of the Suspension of Alvin Schlangen Food Sales
  
  March 27, 2013 - The Minnesota Consolidated Food Licensing Law prohibits all persons from engaging “in the business of manufacturing, processing, selling, handling, or storing food without having first obtained from the commissioner a license for doing such business.”
• 8-3000-30265 In the Matter of the Petition of Waseca County for a Declaration that the December 14, 2012, Deadline Imposed by the MN DOT for an Agreement Regarding Turnback of TH 14 is an Unadopted Rule
  
  March 26, 2013 - On December 19, 2013, Steele and Waseca counties (the Counties) petitioned this Office for issuance of an Order under Minn. Stat. § 14.381. The Counties sought an Order directing the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Department or MnDOT) to refrain from enforcing certain interpretations of Minn. Stat. §§ 161.081 and 161.16 as though they were duly adopted rules.
• 8-3000-30255 In the Matter of the Petition of Steele County for a Declaration that the December 14, 2012, Deadline Imposed by the MN DOT for an Agreement Regarding Turnback of TH 14 is an Unadopted Rule
  
  March 26, 2013 - On December 19, 2013, Steele and Waseca counties (the Counties) petitioned this Office for issuance of an Order under Minn. Stat. § 14.381. The Counties sought an Order directing the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Department or MnDOT) to refrain from enforcing certain interpretations of Minn. Stat. §§ 161.081 and 161.16 as though they were duly adopted rules.
• 60-0320-30535 Ken Martin v Representative Greg Davids
  
  March 26, 2013 - On March 21, 2013, Ken Martin filed a Campaign Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that Representative Greg Davids violated Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06 in connection with letters published in the Brainerd Dispatch, Albert Lea Tribune, the Grant County Herald and the Hinckley News. After reviewing the Complaint and attached exhibits, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge has determined that the Complaint sets forth prima facie violations of Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06.
• 11-1300-30011-Rules-Social Studies Academic Standards
  
  March 22, 2013 - The Administraive Law Judge's Report finds the Department of Education's proposed rules establishing Academic Standards and Social Studies to be needed, reasonable and within the Department's statutory authority and having no other defects.
• 16-2600-30139 In the Matter of Proposed Rules of the Minnesota Racing Commission Governing Horse Racing, Horse Medication, Chapter 7890
  
  March 21, 2013 - The MRC is considering rule amendments that will lower the threshold level for phenylbutazone (bute) from five (5) micrograms to two (2) micrograms of the substance or metabolites thereof per milliliter of blood plasma or serum in race horses older than two years old. Second, no concentration of any level of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), other than bute, would be allowed in the serum or plasma sample taken after a race from a two-year-old horse.
• 65-2600-30184 In the Matter of the Proposed Rules of the Minnesota Racing Commission Governing Horse Racing
  
  March 13, 2013 - The above rule has been approved.
• 8-0305-30394 Eric Utes v. Minnesota Board of Physical Therapy
  
  March 13, 2013 - The Complaint is DISMISSED.
• 40-0330-23084 In the Matter of the Petition for the Detachment of Certain Land from the City of Babbitt, Minnesota, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.06 D-492
  
  March 13, 2013 - This proceeding was initiated on May 2, 2012, when 150 property owners (Petitioners) in the City of Babbitt (City), Minnesota, filed a Petition, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.06, for detachment of 5,675 acres of property from the City.
• 67-1302-23056 In the Matter of Denial of the Licensure Application of Gary J. Axford
  
  March 13, 2013 - Since there is a factual dispute over whether Respondent engaged in immoral conduct and whether Respondent should be denied a teaching license if he is found to have engaged in immoral conduct, summary disposition is not appropriate in this case. There was also no violation of Respondent’s right to procedural due process.