Search Site
Search Opinions
Browse Opinions by Date
Special-Term Orders
About Content
This archive includes orders decided by the Court of Appeals at its Special-Term Session, the weekly calendar where a panel of three Court of Appeals judges considers jurisdictional and procedural matters. This archive does not include orders before January 1, 2023 or orders that were not decided at Special Term. Orders not included in this archive may be accessed via the Minnesota Appellate Courts’ public access system, PMACS.
Search Briefs
Search Articles
Results 1 - 10 of 21
This appeal involves the statewide water quality standard for sulfate, implemented by respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to protect wild rice, also known as the wild rice rule. See Minn. R. 7050.0224, subp. 2 (2023). In 2014, relator United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) applied for a modification from this statewide standard for a particular waterbody, Hay Lake. Such a modification is referred to as a site- specific standard (SSS). U.S. Steel challenges the MPCA's decision to deny U.S. Steel's application for an SSS, arguing that (1) the MPCA's decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or based on legal error; and (2) the MPCA improperly relied on an unpromulgated rule when it made its decision. U.S. Steel also moves to complete or supplement the record on appeal. We grant U.S. Steel's motion to supplement the record, and we affirm.
Date:
March
31, 2025
I. In a certiorari appeal challenging an agency decision to issue a permit, documents that were submitted to the agency after the close of the noticed public-comment period and that were not considered by the agency are not part of the record that must be submitted to this court by the agency. However, in evaluating a challenge to the agency’s decision for failure to adequately consider an important aspect of the permitting decision, this court may consider documents and information that were submitted to the agency at any time before it issued its decision. II. This court’s authority under Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2018) to remand an administrative case for further proceedings is not dependent on establishment of one of the six reasons for reversal of the agency’s decision under that provision. This court may remand for further proceedings when the record submitted by the agency and the written agency decision are insufficient to facilitate judicial review. Remanded; motion to supplement granted and motion to strike denied.
Citation: 943 N.W.2d 399
Date:
March
23, 2020
1. Because the 60-day deadline to appeal the decision of a governing board under Minn. Stat. § 356.96, subd. 13 (2024), runs from the day the board mails its decision, Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01(e)—which is incorporated into Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 126.01— applies to add three days to the appeal deadline. 2. To invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of the court of appeals, a petitioner may effectuate service on "the adverse party," as required by Minn. Stat. § 606.02 (2024), by serving the party with the issued writ of certiorari directly, regardless of whether the party is represented by counsel. Appeal to proceed.
Date:
April
28, 2025
Under Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2020), when an agency fails to adequately explain the reasons for its conclusions, a reviewing court may reverse the agency's decision as unsupported by substantial evidence or remand to the agency for additional findings. Remanded.
Citation: 965 N.W.2d 1
Date:
July
19, 2021
To invoke appellate jurisdiction under the judicial review provisions of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, a petitioner may effectuate service on “parties to the contested case,” Minn. Stat. § 14.63, and “parties to the proceeding before the agency,” Minn. Stat. § 14.64, by serving those parties directly, whether or not they are represented by counsel. Reversed and remanded; appeal reinstated.
Citation: 991 N.W.2d 867
Date:
June
21, 2023
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is not required under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q, and its applicable regulations to investigate allegations of sham permitting when a source first applies for a synthetic minor source permit. Reversed and remanded.
Citation: 955 N.W.2d 258
Date:
February
24, 2021
This certiorari appeal follows a remand for respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (the agency) to provide further findings in support of its 2018 decision to issue an air-emissions permit to respondent Poly Met Mining Inc. (PolyMet). Relators are a coalition of environmental groups: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (the center), Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, and Sierra Club (collectively, the coalition). The coalition challenges the agency’s supplemented decision to issue the permit, arguing that (1) the agency’s determination that Minn. R. 7007.1000, subp. 2(C) (2021), does not warrant denial of the permit, relies on an erroneous interpretation of state permitting rules; and (2) the decision is arbitrary and capricious because the agency declined to consider evidence from after 2018. The coalition also notes that the administrative record does not contain the post-2018 evidence that it proffered to the agency on remand or the agency’s letter declining to consider the evidence, and it moves this court to supplement the record with those documents. We grant the motion to supplement the record and affirm the agency’s supplemented decision.
Date:
December
18, 2023
I. Under Minn. Stat. § 93.483, subd. 3(a) (2018), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has an independent obligation to determine whether the statutory criteria for holding a contested-case hearing on a permit to mine are met. II. Under Minn. Stat. § 93.483, subd. 3(a)(3), a contested-case hearing must be held on a permit to mine when “there is a reasonable basis underlying a disputed material issue of fact so that a contested case hearing would allow the introduction of information that would aid the commissioner in resolving the disputed facts in order to make a final decision on the completed application.” This standard is met when there is probative, competent, and conflicting evidence on a material fact issue. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Citation: 940 N.W.2d 216
Date:
January
13, 2020
1. Because the decision of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit was arbitrary and capricious due to the presence of several danger signals suggesting the agency 2 did not adequately consider whether the NorthMet project has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards within the Lake Superior watershed, and because appellants may have been prejudiced by the arbitrary and capricious permitting process, we remand to the MPCA to remedy the procedural irregularities and resulting deficiencies in the administrative record. 2. Because the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit does not comply with Minn. R. 7060.0600, subp. 2 (2021), which prohibits the discharge of industrial waste to the groundwater “unsaturated zone,” we remand the permit to the MPCA for consideration of whether a variance under Minn. R. 7060.0900 (2021) is appropriate for the pollution of unsaturated groundwater within a containment system for the NorthMet project; we affirm, however, that the prohibition in Minn. R. 7060.0600, subp. 1 (2021), on injecting polluted water directly to the groundwater saturated zone for long-term storage, does not apply. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Citation: 993 N.W.2d 627
Date:
August
02, 2023
1. Allegations that property owned by a person will be affected by the proposed mining operations is sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement in Minn. Stat. § 93.483, subd. 1 (2020), to file a petition for a contested case hearing. 2. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has discretion under Minn. Stat. § 93.483, subd. 3(a) (2020), to decide whether a contested case hearing will aid the commissioner in resolving a disputed material issue of fact related to a completed application for a permit to mine. 3. Under Minn. Stat. § 93.483, subd. 3(a)(3), when reviewing the commissioner’s decision to deny a petition for a contested case hearing, the reviewing court must determine whether the petitioner has shown that the decision by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources regarding a specific disputed material issue of fact was not reasonably supported by substantial evidence in the record. 4. Minnesota Statutes § 93.481, subd. 3(a) (2020), requires the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set a definite, fixed term of years for a permit to mine. 5. The court of appeals erred in reversing the dam-safety permits on the basis that a contested case hearing was ordered on the permit to mine because the two permits are governed by distinct statutory standards. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Citation: 959 N.W.2d 731
Date:
April
28, 2021