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 24
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
In this certiorari appeal, relators Partners in Nutrition (Partners) and "responsible individuals" (collectively, relators) challenge a decision by respondent Minnesota Department of Education's (MDE) termination of their participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program and their disqualification from future program participation. Relators argue that (1) the serious-deficiency notice issued by MDE failed to follow the program regulations under 7 C.F.R. § 226.6(c)(3)(iii)(A) (2025); (2) the serious-deficiency notice violated their right to procedural due process; and (3) MDE's final decision terminating them from the program is not supported by substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. We affirm.
Date:
June
16, 2025
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
Appellant challenges an agency decision denying his medical claim for dental implants because he did not qualify for such coverage under Minnesota statute. On appeal, the district court concluded that the statute on which the agency based its lack-of-coverage decision was unconstitutional. Because the agency relied on a statute that the district court determined to be unconstitutional and because it did not make findings as to whether the claimed dental work was medically necessary, we remand to the agency.
Date:
June
23, 2025
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
These consolidated appeals are taken from a decision by an administrative-law judge (the ALJ) following a contested-case hearing on court-ordered amendments that respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the DNR) made to groundwater appropriations permits held by certain municipalities. On appeal from the ALJ’s decision, four of the municipalities challenge certain conditions included in the permits, and two associations challenge the ALJ’s rejection of a different condition. In the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision is based on legal error and is arbitrary and capricious because the decision readjudicated the overall necessity of the court-ordered permit conditions and failed to make findings specific to each municipal permittee regarding the feasibility of the conditions. We therefore reverse the ALJ’s decision and remand for additional findings and a revised decision.
Date:
July
14, 2025
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