Minn. Stat. § 14.69

Section 14.69(e) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to evaluate the evidence relied on in light of the entire record.

Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1983-12-16(e)

As an initial matter, the substantial evidence test is a standard of judicial review. It requires the reviewing court to evaluate the evidence relied on by the fact-finder “in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1982).

Section 14.69 allows a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence in the entire record; a hearing examiner’s report is one part of that record.

City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1984-01-27

Moreover, a reviewing court by statute may reverse or modify an agency’s decision only if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982). A hearing examiner’s report is merely one part of that record.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision for lack of substantial evidence only when substantial rights have been prejudiced.

Blocher Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation · filed 1984-04-17

This court may reverse or modify the decision of the Commissioner only if Blocher’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the conclusions are “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted * * Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982). ... Using the standards set forth in People’s Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Comm’n, 342 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Minn.Ct.App.1983), we conclude that there is substantial evidence when reviewed in light of the entire record to support the Commissioner’s conclusions.

Section 14.69 limits judicial review of agency findings: when evidence conflicts or supports more than one inference, the reviewing court must uphold the hearing examiner’s findings.

State Ex Rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Office of County Auditor Ex Rel. Anderson · filed 1984-05-08(e)

Our scope of review is limited. Minn.Stat. § 14.69. ... Where the evidence is conflicting or more than one inference may be drawn from the evidence, the findings of the hearing examiner must be upheld.

Section 14.69(e) directs courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

Contested Case of Richview Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare · filed 1984-07-24(e)

Finally, we note that there was substantial evidence in view of the entire record to support the findings that the on-site administrators were, in fact, administrators of their respective facilities. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1982); Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Comm’n, 342 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Minn.Ct.App.1983).

Section 14.69 requires a reviewing court to accept a hearing examiner’s findings when substantial evidence supports them.

State ex rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency · filed 1984-09-04

This court is required to accept the findings of the hearing examiner if the findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

City of St. Paul v. Harding · filed 1984-10-09

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982) governs the standard of review in an appeal from an administrative agency: ... We believe the Commissioner’s order is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69(e) requires a reviewing court to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision in light of the whole record, including contrary evidence.

Department of Natural Resources v. Todd County Hearings Unit · filed 1984-10-16(e)

Appellate review, however, extends to whether the evidence supporting the Hearing Unit’s decisions was “substantial,” considering the record as a whole, including the measurements and other evidence submitted by the DNR.

Section 14.69(e) provides that agency fact findings will not be disturbed if substantial evidence supports them.

Conagra, Inc. v. Swanson · filed 1984-10-30(e)

Our review of administrative decisions is limited. Agency fact finding will not be disturbed if substantial evidence supports the finding. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1982).

Section 14.69 requires substantial evidence to support agency factual findings and permits remand when the record is inadequate for a reasoned decision.

In Re Continental Telephone Co. of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 1984-11-13

The substantial evidence test is used to review factual findings of an agency. ... Therefore, we remand the matter to the PUC for proceedings to obtain evidence to support a reasoned decision.

Section 14.69(e) requires substantial evidence in view of the entire record to support an agency decision.

State Ex Rel. Gomez-Bethke v. Metropolitan Airport Commission · filed 1984-11-27(e)

We find the hearing examiner’s decision te be supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1982).

Section 14.69 provides a substantial evidence standard for reviewing agency decisions.

Petition of Peoples Natural Gas Co. · filed 1984-12-04

The Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act provides several standards of review in appeals from administrative agencies. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982). ... In reviewing decisions of an agency, the substantial evidence test is applied. ... The Commission’s order was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69(e) requires a reviewing court to determine whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Hennepin County Welfare Board v. Schultz · filed 1984-12-24(e)

We must determine, just as the trial court, whether the agency decision was supported by substantial evidence. Brunner v. State of Minnesota, 285 N.W.2d 74, 75 (Minn.1979); Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1982). ... Thus its decision was based on substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse or modify an administrative decision that lacks substantial evidence in the entire record or is arbitrary and capricious.

Life Star Ambulance System, Inc. v. Ashton · filed 1985-03-12

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982) provides that this court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if an administrative finding, inference, conclusion or decision is “[unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted * * * ” or it is arbitrary and capricious. ... Based upon the above standards and the record, we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when substantial evidence in the entire record does not support it.

State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. · filed 1985-04-09

Accordingly we hold that there is not substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted to support the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Sports & Health Club discriminated against Bedor on the ... basis of sex when it refused to consider him for employment in August of 1983.

Section 14.69(e) calls for review of whether an agency determination is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

Draganosky v. Minnesota Board of Psychology · filed 1985-05-17(e)

The dispositive issue in this appeal, as we see it, is whether this determination is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1984). We hold that it is.

Section 14.69 requires a reviewing court to uphold an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence in the record supports them.

State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. · filed 1985-05-17

(2) Turning to the merits, we address first Sports and Health’s contention that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders of the hearing examiner are “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as a whole.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982). In examining that contention, we are not permitted to substitute our view of the evidence for that adopted by the hearing examiner if substantial evidence in the record supports his decision.

Section 14.69(e) limits review of agency findings to whether substantial evidence supports them in view of the entire record.

Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club · filed 1985-08-29(e)

This court reviews the evidence only to determine if the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1984).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its conclusion lacks substantial evidence in the record as a whole and prejudices a party’s substantial rights.

Northern Messenger, Inc. v. Airport Couriers, Inc. · filed 1985-11-05

The testimony of representatives from Patricia Kladis Advertising and Air Freight Express constitutes no more than some evidence. It is inadequate to support a conclusion that there are insufficient numbers of local cartage carriers to serve the metropolitan area.

Section 14.69 permits a court to modify an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Porter Farms, Inc. · filed 1986-02-25

This court may modify or reverse its decision only if we find its findings, inferences, conclusions or decision is ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or ... Minn.Stat. § 14.69. ... We agree with Porter Farms and Sorenson that the administrative law judge’s findings with regard to the value of the fringe benefits is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an agency decision when it lacks substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Padilla v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Examiners · filed 1986-03-04(e)

Accordingly, we will only consider whether substantial evidence supports the remaining four.

Section 14.69 requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to consider whether substantial evidence supports them in the record as a whole.

In Re Claims Against the Kern Grain Co. · filed 1985-06-18

In reviewing decisions of an administrative agency the court is governed by Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1982) which provides: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; ... The finding of fact cannot be set aside unless it is without substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 14.69 permits affirmance of an agency order supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

Levingston v. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department · filed 1986-06-17

We find that the order is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69(e) limits review of disputed factual findings to whether they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Carey v. Coty Construction · filed 1986-09-02(e)

Therefore, we are limited to determining whether the court’s factual findings are “[unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1984).

Section 14.69(e) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire record when deciding whether substantial evidence supports an administrative decision.

State v. Scientific Computers, Inc. · filed 1986-09-16(e)

In determining whether substantial evidence supports a conclusion, the entire record must be examined.

Section 14.69(e) requires an agency decision to be supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire submitted record.

In re Minnesota Power's Transfer of M.L. Hibbard Units 3 & 4 Boilers & Related Facilities to the Duluth · filed 1987-01-13(e)

Second, the PUC’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence “in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1984). There is substantial evidence to support the PUC’s decision not to change Minnesota Power’s rates now even if the report is given little or no weight..

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence in the entire record or is arbitrary or capricious.

Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. State, Water Resources Board · filed 1987-02-10

The Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984), governs judicial review of agency decision: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. ... Based on the scientific reports and testimony at the hearing, we find that the Board’s decision to include Big Fish Lake and Collegeville Township is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in the entire record.

Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Commerce · filed 1987-02-17

The agency’s factual findings are to be reviewed under the substantial evidence test. ... The record presents an adequate basis for the Commissioner’s decision.

Section 14.69 allows reversal of a contested-case agency decision when a finding unsupported by substantial evidence may have prejudiced the petitioner's substantial rights.

State ex rel. Johnson v. City of Duluth · filed 1987-03-17(e)

Factual findings made by an agency in a quasi-judicial context, such as this, will be upheld if they are supported by “substantial evidence.” ... The administrative law judge’s conclusion that the State has not proven that Occhino qualified for the 100-day program is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 places the burden on a petitioner challenging agency findings to show that the record as a whole does not support them.

In Re the Proposed Activation of the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass'n · filed 1987-06-23(e)

The petitioner has the burden of establishing that the agency’s findings are not supported by the record in its entirety.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal or remand when an ALJ’s decision prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Khalifa v. G.X. Corp. · filed 1987-06-30(e)

When reviewing an ALJ’s decision, this court may reverse or remand if substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision is “[unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted * * Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1984).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence, which requires more than some or any evidence and must be adequate for a reasonable mind to accept.

In Re the Great American Insurance Co. · filed 1987-09-29

Interpretations of the substantial evidence test require such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and more than some or any evidence.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Larson v. D. & G. Farms, Inc. · filed 1987-10-06(e)

(e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; * * * ... Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). ... The Commissioner’s finding that Larson was an independent contractor from April 16 to May 22 is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.

Section 14.69 requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in the entire record.

Matter of Schroeder · filed 1987-11-24(e)

An agency’s factual findings are to be reviewed under the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 calls for substantial evidence review of the commission’s quasi-judicial findings; in a rate case, the court examines the agency’s explanation and whether its conclusion is reasonable on the record.

Petition of Northern States Power Co. · filed 1987-12-11

When the MPUC engages in a quasi-judi-eial function, a reviewing court applies the “substantial evidence” test.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when the decision prejudices substantial rights and lacks substantial evidence in the entire record.

Kollmorgen v. State Board of Medical Examiners · filed 1987-12-15(e)

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 provides the standards for judicial review of an agency decision. ... In reviewing an agency decision, this court will examine the entire record to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. ... The weight of the evidence adequately supports the disciplinary action taken.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence in the entire record or is arbitrary or capricious.

Petition of Interstate Power Co. · filed 1987-12-15

The legislature has indicated that an agency’s decision may be reversed or modified if the decision is: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). ... There is substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s determination that Interstate’s forecasting methods should have been modified at the time Interstate entered into the Guthrie County project, and that reliance upon past forecasting methods was imprudent.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record, while leaving witness credibility to the agency.

In re the Disciplinary Action Against Wang · filed 1987-12-29(e)

Wang argues the Board’s findings and decision are not supported by substantial evidence. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1986) (court may reverse administrative findings and decision if they are “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record”). “Substantial evidence” has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” ... We cannot substitute our judgment for the agency’s on the credibility of witnesses. ... The Board’s decision is not clearly contrary to the evidence.

Section 14.69(e) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence in the entire record.

Deerson v. Metal-Matic, Inc. · filed 1988-04-26(e)

(e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; * * * ... Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). ... After reviewing the entire record in this case, we conclude there was adequate evidence to support the Commission’s findings on Metal-Matic’s termination of Deerson’s employment.

Section 14.69(e) permits a court to reverse or modify an administrative decision when findings unsupported by substantial evidence prejudice a petitioner’s substantial rights.

Bohn v. CEDARBROOK ENGINEERING CO. · filed 1988-05-03(e)

We may reverse or modify the judge’s decision if substantial major rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because administrative findings are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1986). ... Finding adequate evidence supporting the judge’s findings, we conclude that the decision should not be modified or reversed.

Section 14.69 does not permit reversal for lack of substantial evidence when the record supports the agency’s finding that the applicant failed to present evidence it was required to provide.

North Memorial Medical Center v. Minnesota Department of Health · filed 1988-05-24(e)

Where the Commissioner’s decision is based on an applicant’s failure to submit evidence, and the lack of evidence is supported by the record, it is not proper for the applicant to seek reversal on the ground that the decision is not supported by evidence it had the burden to present.

Section 14.69(e) requires a reviewing court to consider the entire record and affirm an agency decision supported by evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.

Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights · filed 1988-06-17(e)

Under § 14.69 of the Act, the reviewing court may affirm, remand, reverse or modify an agency decision if the agency’s findings, conclusions or decisions are in error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious. ... Under this standard, the reviewing court will affirm the agency’s decision if, in considering the entire record, it is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. ... After reviewing the entire record, we agree that Sterling has not established a prima facie case.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights and is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training · filed 1988-06-28

We may affirm the department’s decision, or remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of relator have been prejudiced because the department’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the record as submitted; ... Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). ... The Commissioner’s determination that the home health aides are employees is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse, remand, or modify an agency decision when substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the decision lacks substantial evidence.

Quast Transfer, Inc. v. Minnesota Transportation Regulation Board · filed 1988-08-30

Our review of agency decisions is governed by statute and we will reverse, remand or modify the decision ... if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or ... The Board’s determination that Quast operated as a regular route common carrier without appropriate certification is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an administrative decision that is arbitrary or capricious, affected by legal error, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Mower County Social Services · filed 1989-01-17

The administrative law judge’s decision will be reversed if the findings, inferences, conclusions or decision are arbitrary or capricious, affected by errors of law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986).

Section 14.69(e) requires courts reviewing agency findings for substantial evidence to consider contradictory evidence and conflicting inferences in the entire record.

Department of Human Services v. Residences · filed 1989-02-28(e)

We will not uphold an agency’s decision on the basis of evidence which, in and of itself justifies that decision, without taking into account contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn.

Section 14.69 permits an appellate court to reverse or modify an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence in the record.

In Re the Real Estate Salesperson's License of Perron · filed 1989-03-21

Only when an agency decision reflects an error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious will an appellate court reverse. ... Relator’s suspension was supported by substantial evidence, and the case need not be remanded for determination of a specific penalty for relator’s violation of section 82.24.

Section 14.69(e) permits a court to reverse a contested-case decision that lacks substantial evidence and requires affirmance when the record contains evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate.

Shockency v. Jefferson Lines · filed 1989-05-12(e)

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the final decision of an administrative agency in a contested case may be reversed if the reviewing court finds lack of substantial evidence. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1988). The court will affirm, however, if in light of the entire record the decision is supported by evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

In Re the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang · filed 1989-06-09(e)

This court may reverse an agency decision, in a contested case, where such decisions are “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1988).

Section 14.69 provides for substantial evidence review of an agency's factual findings.

Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. · filed 1989-06-27(e)

Because the facts of this case do not permit only one conclusion, we shall review the denial of equitable estoppel here as a fact question. "[When] reviewing an agency's factual findings courts should use the substantial evidence test."

Section 14.69(e) requires courts reviewing agency decisions for substantial evidence to consider the record without reweighing evidence or reassessing credibility.

Lakeland Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Engle · filed 1990-01-16(e)

On appeal from a commissioner’s determination, we do not reweigh the evidence, reassess credibility, and arrive at a de novo determination; rather, since we do find substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision, we affirm. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1988).

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an administrative order when its findings lack substantial evidence in the entire record.

Matter of Medcenters Health Care, Inc. · filed 1990-01-23(e)

This court has the authority to reverse an administrative order which is “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted”. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1988). ... These findings are supported by evidence in the record.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

In re an Investigation of Unfair Election Practice Objections · filed 1990-01-30

Decisions of administrative agencies will be reversed when they reflect an error of law, are arbitrary and capricious or are unsupported by substantial evidence. ... The Commissioner must rely on substantial evidence in the record to support his ruling. The evidence here does not support the Commissioner’s decision.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when substantial rights are prejudiced by a finding unsupported by substantial evidence or one that is arbitrary or capricious.

North Face Exteriors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training · filed 1990-07-17(e), (f)

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988). Relator claims that his substantial rights are prejudiced in that, as a result of the Commissioner’s finding, he will be obliged to pay taxes on the wages in question. To prevail, relator must demonstrate that the finding was either unsupported by substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Paper v. Rent-A-Wreck · filed 1990-11-20(e)

On review, the decision may be reversed if it is "affected by * * * error of law" or "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted." Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d), (e). ... As the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case, the Commission erred in concluding that Rent-A-Wreck's requirement had a discriminatory impact on public assistance recipients.

Section 14.69(e) permits a court to reverse an agency finding that lacks substantial evidence in the record.

In re Wilson · filed 1991-02-19(e)

The MTRB found that the Manager’s Agreement signed by the parties was merely a subterfuge for the unauthorized transfer of Wilson’s permit authority. We do not find substantial evidence in the record to support this finding. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1988).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency’s factual determinations when they lack substantial evidence in the entire record.

In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Service Territory of People's Cooperative Power Ass'n · filed 1991-05-14(e)

This court may reverse factual determinations of an administrative agency if they are: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988) (scope of judicial review). ... The evidence was substantial enough to permit the conclusions of the judge and commission that investments were made to permit services expected to be sold in the North Park sub-divisions.

Section 14.69 requires courts reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to consider the record in its entirety.

Hennepin County Community Services Department v. Hale · filed 1991-05-14

In our determination whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must consider the evidence in its entirety. ... We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s decision that the contested report was inaccurate in concluding that the report of abuse by Johnston was substantiated.

Section 14.69(e) calls for affirming agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

Matter of Dougherty · filed 1992-03-17(e)

These factual findings will be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 343 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Minn.1984); Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1990).

Section 14.69 permits reversal when an agency decision prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence in the whole record or is arbitrary or capricious.

Erickson v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services for the State · filed 1992-12-22(e)-(f)

First, the BCSSA’s continuing determination of noncooperation, as applied to the facts and circumstances of appellant’s situation today, is arbitrary and capricious. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f). ... Second, the BCSSA’s decision is not supported by “substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence in the entire record or are arbitrary and capricious.

Blue & White Taxi v. Carlson · filed 1993-03-02

This court may reverse or modify the decision if the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record or are arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1990). ... The Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69(e) requires the court to assess whether the agency’s decision is supported by the record as a whole.

Distribution Services, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training · filed 1989-01-24(e)

The representative’s decision was supported by the record, and the facts he found support the conclusion that the base of operations for the second class of employees was in Minnesota.

Section 14.69 requires a court to uphold agency factual findings when the record contains conflicting evidence or supports more than one inference.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Moorhead State University · filed 1990-05-08

Our review of the AU’s decision is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988): ... Where the record contains conflicting evidence or where more than one inference may be drawn from that evidence, we will uphold the AU’s factual findings.

Section 14.69 requires a reviewing court to determine whether the entire record contains substantial evidence supporting an agency decision.

In Re the Appeal of Wenger · filed 1993-08-24

There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the DRS’s determination that Wenger’s requested goal would not lead to employment.

Section 14.69’s substantial evidence standard applies to judicial review of administrative agency findings of fact.

Thuma v. Kroschel · filed 1993-09-07

The substantial evidence standard applies to our review of an administrative agency's findings of fact under Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1992).

Section 14.69 calls for affirming an agency decision when substantial evidence supports it and it is not arbitrary or capricious.

In Re the Involuntary Discharge or Transfer of J.S. Ex Rel. Hall · filed 1994-03-01

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision that Ebenezer has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer or discharge of J.S. is necessary to her welfare and that her needs cannot be met in the facility is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69(e) requires a reviewing court to uphold agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

Matter of Black · filed 1994-09-30(e)

This court must uphold the Commissioner’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence in the entire record.

Application of Burlington Northern R. Co. · filed 1994-10-11

This court may reverse or modify the Board’s order only if the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary and capricious. ... Substantial evidence supports the findings adopted by the Board.

Section 14.69(e) and (f) provide for reversal of agency findings that lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary and capricious.

Contel of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1995-06-06(e), (f)

These findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary and capricious. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (courts will reverse findings when they are not supported in the record or are arbitrary and capricious).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when substantial evidence in the entire record does not support it.

In Re the Insurance Agent License of Thomas Casey, Sr., P.A. · filed 1996-02-09

This court may reverse or modify the decision of an agency if the decision is “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1994).

Section 14.69(e)'s substantial-evidence review concerns agency findings of fact; whether the agency applied the proper legal standard is a question of law.

Bastian v. Carlton County Highway Department · filed 1996-11-05(e)

We recognize that an administrative agency's determination must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e) (1994). But the limited scope of review encompassed by the "substantial evidence" test is directed at the sufficiency of the agency's findings of fact. See Cable Communications Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658, 668 (Minn.1984). The issue here, however, is whether the proper legal standards have been applied, and thus presents a question of law.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence in the entire record.

In Re Medical License of Friedenson · filed 1998-02-24

The board’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 calls for substantial evidence review when an agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity to determine facts and resolve parties’ rights.

In Re the Quantification of Environmental Costs · filed 1998-05-19

Given these circumstances, the commission acted in a quasi-judicial capacity in determining facts and in resolving the rights of the parties, and as such, its decision is subject to the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 allows review of an agency decision for lack of substantial evidence or for arbitrary and capricious action.

In re Minnesota Orchestral Ass'n for a Variance From Minn. R. 7030.0040 for the Operation of the Proposed Brooklyn Park · filed 2000-03-21(e), (f)

The variance is supported by substantial evidence accumulated after years of consultation and investigation and is not arbitrary and capricious because MPCA neither failed to consider an important aspect of the problem nor relied on a factor the legislature did not intend it to consider. We therefore affirm.

Section 14.69(e) allows a court to reverse an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Hazelton v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services · filed 2000-07-03(e)

The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision that Hazelton committed an intentional program violation, and we, therefore, reverse.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

In Re Appeal of O'Boyle · filed 2002-12-24

Under Minn.Stat. § 14.69, we can reverse the commissioner’s decision if its decision is, among other things, “Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.”

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence in the entire record.

Pietsch v. Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 2003-06-17

In a judicial review [of a contested case hearing], the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: ... (e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2002). ... Based on this record, we conclude that the board's conclusion that relator engaged in fee splitting in violation of Minn.Stat. § 148.10, subd. 1(a)(16), is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 governs judicial review of contested case agency decisions; a court upholds an agency determination supported by substantial evidence in the record.

In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of Mounds View · filed 2003-07-03

Review of agency decisions following a contested case hearing is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2002). ... We will not disturb an agency's decision as long as the agency's determination has adequate support in the record as required by the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 permits reversal and remand when an agency decision lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

In Re the City of Owatonna's NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance · filed 2004-01-06(e), (f)

Our standard of review of an agency decision denying a contested case hearing and granting a permit is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69(a)-(f) (2002). Under that statute, this court determines whether the agency’s decision is in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by other error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. ... We therefore reverse the MPCA’s issuance of NPDES permits and remand this matter for contested case hearings.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse or remand an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Commissioner of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · filed 2005-05-17(e)

This court can reverse or remand an agency’s decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. ... In this case, we conclude that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support rejection of the alternative of downsizing the WWTP and using decentralized treatment as not feasible or prudent, and we remand this issue to the MPCA with instructions to require the city to actually analyze the prudence and feasibility of this alternative.

Section 14.69 requires review of the whole record to determine whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s factual findings.

In Re Appeal of Staley · filed 2007-04-24

Based on the record as a whole, we conclude that the commissioner’s decision regarding the facts of the incident is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69(e) permits reversal of an agency decision when the overall record lacks substantial evidence.

In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Strecker · filed 2010-01-12(e)

Thus, we conclude that the overall record does not include substantial evidence, as required by Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e).

Section 14.69 permits reversal when an agency decision lacks substantial evidence; objections to how the agency weighed evidence do not establish that ground.

In the Matter of the Duty Disability Benefits for Matthew Olson. · filed 2014-10-27(e)

Olson’s last two arguments may go to the weight of evidence but do not go to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the PERA board’s decision.

Section 14.69(e) and (f) provide grounds for modifying or reversing a decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Mahmood Khan, Relator v. Minneapolis City Council · filed 2014-12-22(e), (f)

A city council’s quasi-judicial decision “may be modified or reversed when it is ‘[u]nsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted’ or ‘[a]rbitrary or capricious.’” City of Mankato v. Mahoney, 542 N.W.2d 689, 691-92 (Minn. App. 1996) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (1994)). ... Therefore, because the city’s decision to revoke Khan’s rental-dwelling license for the property is supported by the evidence, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69(e) supplies the substantial-evidence standard for judicial review of agency decisions.

George Marita Obara, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services · filed 2015-07-27(e)

This court will sustain the agency’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e) (2014); Meuleners, 725 N.W.2d at 123. ... We conclude that the commissioner’s determination is not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless a listed ground for reversal exists, including a lack of substantial evidence in the record.

Ken Peterson, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Relator. · filed 2015-12-21

This court will affirm an administrative agency’s decision unless its findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; ... Minn. Stat. § 14.69. ... For this reason, the MnOSHA board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 14.69 permits a court to affirm a DHS commissioner’s decision when substantial evidence supports the determination.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Tami L. Kreuzer of the Maltreatment Determination and Order to Forfeit a Fine. · filed 2015-12-28

Because the commissioner’s maltreatment determination is based on reasoned decision-making and the relevant evidence would cause a reasonable mind to conclude that Kreuzer committed maltreatment by neglect, we affirm the commissioner’s determination.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when it is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

In the Matter of the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Angie Mattison. · filed 2016-05-23

Administrative-agency decisions are presumed to be correct and “may be reversed only when they are arbitrary and capricious, exceed the agency’s jurisdiction or statutory authority, are made upon unlawful procedure, reflect an error of law, or are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.” In re Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 726 (Minn. App. 2003); see also Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014).

Section 14.69 requires agency findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 · filed 2016-08-03

Although the presence of a pocketknife may be “some” evidence of endangerment, “in view of the entire record as submitted,” the Board’s findings were not based on “substantial evidence” of endangerment as required by Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 directs courts to review agency decisions for specified defects, including lack of substantial evidence.

In the Matter of Franz Schauer, WCA Application, dated April 28, 2014 for No-Loss and Exemption Petition for Appeal dated December 3, 2014, No. 14-09, re: LGU decisions on November 3, November 19, and December 2, 2014. · filed 2016-08-08

We review such decisions to determine whether the decision is: (1) in violation of constitutional provisions, (2) in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction, (3) the product of unlawful procedure, (4) affected by an error of law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence, or (6) arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. ... And review of the record reveals evidence that existing ditches on Schauer’s property were deepened and widened in a manner that could impact or cause permanent loss to the wetland. This evidence supports the decision to deny Schauer’s applications for exemption and no-loss determinations.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision if its findings are arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence in the entire record.

In the Matter of REICHMANN LAND AND CATTLE, LLP · filed 2015-07-29(e)-(f)

We may reverse or modify the decision of an administrative proceeding, however, if the findings, inferences, or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, or are “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e)-(f) (2014); see Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 827 (Minn. 1977) (holding the agency decision must be “lawful and reasonable”).

Section 14.69(e) directs appellate courts to reverse an ALJ decision when the record lacks substantial evidence to support it.

Webster v. Hennepin Cnty. · filed 2018-04-18(e)

The plain text of section 14.69(e) directs appellate courts to reverse a decision of an ALJ when the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the decision.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

In re RS Eden/Eden House · filed 2019-05-22

But we may reverse an agency's decision if it is affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2018). ... RS Eden took numerous reasonable steps to protect J.W. when he told staff members that he was abruptly leaving the facility, and a finding by the Commissioner that these steps were insufficient is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore hold that RS Eden did not engage in maltreatment by neglect.

Section 14.69 limits reversal for an agency's legal error when substantial evidence supports the agency's ultimate determination.

In re Restorff · filed 2019-08-07

Although the Commissioner erred when she misinterpreted the statute, we may not reverse the final agency decision if substantial evidence in the record supports her ultimate determination.

Section 14.69(e) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when a petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the decision lacks substantial evidence in the record.

In re the Matter of: Chad Thompson v. the Commissioner of Douglas County Human Services, ... · filed 2024-06-17(e)

Under section 14.69, this court may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision “if the substantial rights of the petitioner[] may have been prejudiced because,” among other reasons, the decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e). ... And based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in support of DHS’s determination.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

West McDonald Lake Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · filed 2017-06-19(e), (f)

We conclude that the DNR’s determination that the project involves a minimum of encroachment, change, or damage to the environment is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision affected by an error of law.

Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1984-01-27(d)

We presume the agency’s decision (here, the decision of the MPUC) is correct, but the court may reverse an agency decision if the decision was affected by an error of law.

Section 14.69 limits review of agency decisions: supported factual findings bind the reviewing court, but harmful legal error warrants reversal.

Contested Case of Brown v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare · filed 1984-09-04

On appeal we are bound by the hearing examiner’s findings of fact when there is substantial evidence to support them. Our scope of review is limited by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982) (formerly Minn. Stat. § 15.0425), Brunner v. Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, 285 N.W.2d 74, 75 (Minn.1979). ... Yet, where an agency decision is affected by harmful error of law it will be reversed.

Section 14.69 governs judicial review of an agency decision, including review of the agency’s findings against the record.

Wise v. Denesen Insulation Co. · filed 1986-05-27

The scope of this court’s review in cases of this nature is defined by the Administrative Procedures Act. ... As the Commissioner notes, this court is limited to reviewing the findings of the Commissioner’s representative, rather than those of the referee.

Section 14.69 limits review of an agency decision to specified legal and procedural errors, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Walco Leasing v. Bilich · filed 1986-03-11

We are therefore limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision was rendered in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, or upon unlawful procedure, or whether the decision was affected by other error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record submitted, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69(e) and (f) allow an agency decision to stand unless it lacks substantial evidentiary support or is arbitrary and capricious.

Mechtel v. Commissioner of Public Safety · filed 1985-09-03(e), (f)

An agency’s decision will be allowed to stand unless the action is “[ujnsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted,” or is “arbitrary and capricious.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (1984).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency’s factual findings if they are arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. · filed 1986-04-29

This court will reverse an agency’s findings only if they are arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence. ... The record amply supports the determination by the commissioner that La Fonda violated the above statute and rules.

Section 14.69 permits a court to affirm an agency decision when its conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, accords with law, and is not arbitrary or capricious.

Streiff v. Lungren · filed 1986-09-23

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984). The Commissioner’s conclusion that Lun-gren was the employee of Streiff, rather than Bohn, is supported by substantial evidence, is in keeping with the applicable law and is not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 does not enlarge judicial review of a PUC rate design merely because the court must ensure that the design is not discriminatory.

M.A. Hanna Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1986-10-07

As such, these administrative decisions must be upheld unless shown to result in discriminatory rates by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 260, 262, 251 N.W.2d at 357, 358. See Hibbing Taconite Co. v. Minnesota Public Service Commission, 302 N.W.2d 5, 9 (Minn.1980); Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984). We agree with appellant Hanna that we must review the PUC decision to “ensure” that the rate design it approved is not discriminatory, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, 312 Minn. at 260-61, 251 N.W.2d at 357, but we do not agree that this duty enlarges the scope of review already stated.

Section 14.69 permits a court to affirm, reverse, or modify an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Petition of New Ulm Telecom, Inc. · filed 1987-01-13

In reviewing an administrative agency’s decision, a court may affirm, reverse or modify a decision when it is: (d) Affected by other error of law; or (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to affirm, reverse, or modify an agency decision and calls for substantial evidence review of agency factual findings.

Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission · filed 1987-03-03

In reviewing an administrative agency decision under the Administrative Procedures Act, an appellate court may affirm, or reverse or modify pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). Courts are to review an agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 allows a court to disturb an agency decision for specified legal or procedural errors, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Commerce · filed 1987-03-24

We will not disturb a decision of an administrative agency unless it is: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986).

Section 14.69 requires a statutory ground for reversing an agency determination, such as arbitrary or capricious action.

Matter of Welfare of Sayles · filed 1987-07-31

For such an administrative decision to be reversed, it must be ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986); ... Here the juvenile court made none of these findings. In the absence of such findings, the court did not meet the standard of review needed to reverse an agency determination.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision only on listed grounds, including lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious action.

Application of Peoples Natural Gas Co. · filed 1987-10-13

The scope of judicial review of an administrative agency’s decision is found in Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1986), which states that courts may reverse or modify an agency’s decision only if the decision is: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 sets the scope of both district court and appellate court review of a Commissioner of Human Services decision.

Shanlian v. State, Department of Human Services · filed 1988-01-05

The scope of review of a decision of the Commissioner of Human Services is set out in the Administrative Procedure Act, currently found at Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986), and applies to district court and appellate court review of the agency action.

Section 14.69 permits review of an agency’s application of a rule in a contested case, but does not provide for review of the rule’s validity as applied to a particular party.

Contested Case of Christian Nursing Center v. Department of Human Services · filed 1988-02-02

We believe these cases may be resolved in the following manner: while we may consider whether an agency’s application of a rule is valid, we may not consider the validity of the rule itself as applied in a particular context. ... This review is limited to determining whether the decision, findings, or inferences are erroneous; review of the actual rule itself is not contemplated.

Section 14.69 permits judicial review of agency decisions for excess of statutory authority or other error of law.

In re the Occupational License of Haymes · filed 1988-07-19(b), (d)

The APA provides for judicial review of agency decisions if they are “in excess of statutory authority” or “affected by other error of law.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(b), (d) (1986).

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse an arbitrary or capricious agency decision.

Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services · filed 1988-11-16

This court may affirm, reverse, remand or modify the agency’s decision when the administrative decision is arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 calls for independent appellate review of an agency decision, without special deference to the district court’s review.

Maddox v. Department of Human Services of Minnesota · filed 1987-02-03

On review, this court is to examine the agency decision independently and is not required to accord any special deference to the district court’s review.

Section 14.69 requires a reviewing court to determine whether an agency acted quasi-judicially or legislatively because the standard of review differs.

Petition of Murphy Motor Freight Lines · filed 1988-08-30

In order to comply with these statutory requirements, we must determine whether the agency is acting quasi-judicially or in its legislative capacity since the standard of review differs.

Section 14.69 supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision that is not purely a matter of legislative policy.

Matter of Hibbing Taconite Co. · filed 1988-11-22

The MPCA claims that it has made an informal decision, which has a rational basis standard of review, rather than the review standards provided in Minn.Stat. § 14.69. However, there is nothing in the statute or the record which would suggest to us that the agency’s decision in this case is purely a matter of legislative policy which comes under a rational basis test.

Section 14.69 supplies standards for judicial review of agency decisions, including substantial evidence and arbitrary or capricious review, that a court may adopt when the governing statute provides no review standard.

M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander · filed 1988-12-20

However, Minn.Stat. § 117.49 does not contain a review standard. We are without legislative assistance to guide us in determining the standard by which to review the Commissioner’s decision. We conclude the most appropriate standard to be that set forth in Minn.Stat. § 14.69: ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 allows a court to set aside an agency decision that is fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, or based on an erroneous theory of law.

State ex rel. Bouza v. Gregg · filed 1989-02-07

Upon review of an agency’s decision to terminate an employee, it is this court’s function to set aside the agency’s decision only if it is “fraudulent, arbitrary, unreasonable, not supported by substantial evidence on the record, * * * or is based on an erroneous theory of law.” See State ex rel Lucas v. Board of Education and Independent School District No. 99, Esko, 277 N.W.2d 524, 526 (Minn.1979); Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when an error of law may have prejudiced a petitioner’s substantial rights.

Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1989-03-10

This court may reverse or modify the agency’s decision only if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: ... (d) Affected by other error of law; ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court reviewing a contested case to set aside an agency decision for a constitutional violation, excess statutory authority, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Mammenga v. State Department of Human Services · filed 1989-07-21

The standard of judicial review in a contested case is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988). Under this statute, the court may, among other specified grounds, decide whether an administrative decision is in violation of a constitutional provision, is in excess of statutory authority, or is arbitrary and capricious. ... In following its own rule, as it was required to do, the Department was acting reasonably; its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for constitutional violations, excess of jurisdiction, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, or errors of law.

Ross v. State, Department of Human Services · filed 1991-05-21

This court may reverse an agency’s decision only if it violates constitutional law, exceeds the agency’s jurisdiction, is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or is based on errors of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1988).

Section 14.69 sets the scope of review for agency decisions; when the rule of necessity applies, a court may review with special intensity without changing that scope.

Ginsberg v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training · filed 1992-02-18

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1990). Although we apply the above standard of review, wé exercise particular caution in light of the special circumstances of this case: Whenever the rule of necessity is invoked and the administrative decision is reviewable, the reviewing court, without altering the law about scope of review, may and probably should review with special intensity.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an administrative law judge’s decision for constitutional, authority, evidentiary, arbitrariness, or legal error.

State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Clausen · filed 1992-10-20

This court may reverse or modify an AU’s decision if it is in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of an agency’s authority or jurisdiction, arbitrary or capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or affected by an error of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1990).

Section 14.69 directs a reviewing court to assess whether an agency decision violates the constitution, exceeds the agency’s authority, follows unlawful procedure, contains legal error, lacks substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Kaplan v. Washington County Community Social Services · filed 1993-01-05

Under Minn.Stat. § 14.69, this court determines whether the Commissioner’s decision is in violation of a constitutional provision, is in excess of the Commissioner’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, is made upon unlawful procedure, is affected by other error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 provides limited judicial review of administrative action under MAPA; it does not govern a county decision when there is no MAPA agency action or contested case.

State Ex Rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin · filed 1993-02-05

Under Minn.Stat. § 14.69, if a trial court is reviewing the action of an administrative body, it has only limited powers of review. ... In either case, there is no contested case here and no judicial review under the MAPA.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse a contested-case agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or is affected by an error of law.

In Re Certificate of Need for Construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation · filed 1993-06-08

We may reverse the agency’s decision if we find it is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or affected by other error of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 calls for substantial evidence review of an agency’s factual findings, including a finding on equitable estoppel when the facts permit more than one conclusion.

In re the Amended Administrative Penalty Order to Westling Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 1989-06-27(e)

Because the facts of this case do not permit only one conclusion, we shall review the denial of equitable estoppel here as a fact question. “[When] reviewing an agency’s factual findings courts should use the substantial evidence test.”

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary and capricious.

In Re Winona County Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator · filed 1989-08-25

Decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or when the findings are arbitrary and capricious or are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 does not provide for de novo review of agency decisions.

Petition of Hyman Freightways, Inc. · filed 1992-08-18

The parties agree that the Administrative Procedure Act determines the scope of review. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1990). They, however, disagree on the proper standard of review. Appellant argues for “an independent examination of the record,” which respondents interpret as an argument for de novo review. De novo review is not the appropriate standard.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Behrendt v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training · filed 1994-03-29(d), (e), (f)

This court may reverse any findings of the Commissioner that are, inter alia, an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d), (e), (f) (1992).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices a petitioner's substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Minnegasco v. MN PUBLIC UTILITIES COM'N · filed 1995-05-31

Judicial review of an administrative agency decision is governed by the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1992). This court may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision is (e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to affirm or remand an agency decision, or to reverse or modify it when specified errors may have prejudiced a party's substantial rights.

Imprint Tech. v. ECONOMIC SEC. COM'R · filed 1995-08-01

This court may affirm the Commissioner's representative's decision or remand for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relators may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (d) Affected by other error of law; or (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1994); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.12, Subd. 13(4) (1994) stating court of appeals may review decisions of the Commissioner by writ of certiorari.

Section 14.69 allows reversal of an agency decision only if the challenger establishes one of the listed grounds, including an error of law.

Estate of Atkinson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1997-05-29

At issue here is an agency decision that may be reversed only if the party challenging the decision establishes that the decision was: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (d) Affected by another error of law; or (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider constitutional violations, excess authority, unlawful procedure, legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Elim Homes, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1998-03-10

When reviewing an agency decision, this court determines whether the commissioner violated the constitution, exceeded its authority, engaged in unlawful procedure, erred as a matter of law, issued a decision unsupported by substantial evidence, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1996); In re Investigation into Intra-LATA Equal Access & Presubscription, 532 N.W.2d 583, 588 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. Aug. 30, 1995).

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to modify or reverse a decision for specified legal errors, arbitrary or capricious action, or lack of substantial evidence.

Resolution Revoking License 000337 West Side Pawn—880 South Robert Street · filed 1998-12-29

A city council’s decision may be modified or reversed if the city violated constitutional provisions, exceeded its statutory authority, made its decision based on unlawful procedure, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, made an error of law, or lacked substantial evidence in view of the entire record submitted. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1996). ... The city council had a rational basis for its decision, which is, therefore, not arbitrary or capricious. ... The decision is also supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 sets the grounds on which a court reviews a contested-case agency decision, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester · filed 1999-07-20

Statute governs the applicable standard of review here. ... In reviewing an agency decision in a contested-case proceeding, this court determines whether the agency’s decision was ... (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1998).

Section 14.69(d) allows review for errors of law, and courts do not defer to an agency on questions of statutory construction.

Krulish v. State Department of Human Services · filed 1994-01-18(d)

Krulish asserts that the Commissioner’s decision is based on an error of law. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d). This court does not “defer to an administrative agency with respect to pure questions of law.” Kaplan, 494 N.W.2d at 489 (citing St. Otto’s Home v. Department of Human Servs., 437 N.W.2d 35, 39-40 (Minn.1989)). “Statutory construction is a question of law, therefore this court need not defer to the agency’s determination.” Kaplan, 494 N.W.2d at 489.

Section 14.69 allows a court reviewing a final contested case decision to consider whether the agency violated constitutional provisions or exceeded its statutory authority, including through a federal pre-emption challenge.

Fuller v. Ulland · filed 1994-07-12(a), (b)

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 provides that a court reviewing a final decision in a contested case may review that decision for whether it was in violation of constitutional provisions or was in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency. Minn.Stat. § 14.-69, (a) & (b). Either of these provisions appears to provide a state court with the ability to review a claim of federal pre-emption.

Section 14.69’s substantial-evidence and arbitrary-and-capricious standards are separate grounds for reviewing an agency decision and may be applied independently.

Petition of Northern States Power Gas Utility · filed 1994-08-02

On appeal, relators contend that the arbitrary and capricious standard must be applied first, and that once the Commission has explained its departure from precedent, then a question to be reviewed under the substantial evidence test may occur. But these are separate tests and may be applied independently.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of agency findings that lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary and capricious.

Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access · filed 1995-06-06(e), (f)

These findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary and capricious. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (courts will reverse findings when they are not supported in the record or are arbitrary and capricious).

Section 14.69 calls for affirming an agency decision that is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.

Dozier v. COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 1996-04-23(e), (f)

Unless the Commissioner’s decision is arbitrary and capricious and without substantial support in the record, we shall affirm. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (1994). ... The Commissioner’s decisions were based on substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 calls for review of an agency’s legislative action for excess of statutory authority and its quasi-judicial action for substantial evidence.

Matter of Interstate Power Rates Change Request · filed 1998-01-08

Our standard of review is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1996), which provides that the reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency decision if the administrative "finding, inferences, conclusion or decisions are: * * * (b) [i]n excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or * * * (d) [a]ffected by other error of law; or (e) [u]nsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted * * *." As the court of appeals properly noted, the legislature has granted the MPUC both legislative and quasi-judicial powers to exercise its statutory authority, and thus when the MPUC acts in a legislative capacity, the standard of review is whether the MPUC exceeded its statutory authority; in contrast, when the MPUC acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, the standard of review is the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 generally calls for affirming an agency decision unless it is arbitrary or capricious, but the court need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a relatively uncomplicated statute.

In Re Proposal by US West Communications, Inc. · filed 1997-02-11

Moreover, by statute, we should affirm an administrative agency’s decision unless it is arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1996). We conclude that the usual deference does not apply in this case because we address a relatively uncom- • plicated statutory interpretation.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, or is affected by an error of law.

In Re American Iron and Supply Co. · filed 2000-01-18(a)-(e)

This court reviews decisions by the MPCA to issue permits in light of Minn.Stat. § 14.69(a)-(e) (1998). University of Minn., 566 N.W.2d at 103. Appellants bear the burden of proof relative to this issue. Id. (citations omitted). An agency's decision may be reversed if it is determined to be unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or affected by other error of law. Id. (citing Minn.Stat. § 14.69).

Section 14.69 governs the scope of judicial review of a commissioner’s maltreatment decision when review is authorized by section 256.045.

Zahler v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2001-04-03

Because judicial review in this case was authorized by Minn.Stat. § 256.045, we conclude that the scope of review is governed by Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights if it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota · filed 2001-04-12

An appellate court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if substantial rights of the petitioners have been prejudiced by administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions that are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record, or arbitrary and capricious, see Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2000), but the court must also recognize the “need for exercising judicial restraint and for restricting judicial functions to a narrow area of responsibility lest (the court) substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn.1977) (citation omitted).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision if it is arbitrary or capricious or its findings lack substantial evidence.

HealthPartners, Inc. v. Bernstein · filed 2003-01-14

Focusing on our standard of review, it cannot be said that the commissioner’s decision is arbitrary or capricious or that the findings are unsupported by the evidence in this matter.

Section 14.69 applies substantial-evidence review to agency factual findings and arbitrary-and-capricious review to an agency’s legal conclusion setting a removal deadline.

Max Schwartzman & Sons v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · filed 2003-10-28

The substantial-evidence standard of review is generally applied to an administrative agency’s findings of fact. ... Because the MPCA’s decision to impose a six-month timeline on the removal of the ... berm is not a factual finding but a legal conclusion, we review this decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard.

Section 14.69 ordinarily uses a substantial evidence standard when courts review agency decisions.

City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council · filed 2004-08-05

The preponderance of the evidence standard is a higher standard than the substantial evidence standard set forth in section 14.69, which is the typical evidentiary standard applied by appellate courts when reviewing agency decisions.

Section 14.69 sets the grounds for reviewing an agency decision on certiorari, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Fine v. Bernstein · filed 2007-01-23

On writ of certiorari, we determine whether the agency violated the constitution, exceeded its authority, engaged in unlawful procedure, erred as a matter of law, issued a decision unsupported by substantial evidence, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004).