Minn. Stat. § 14.69

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify a contested-case agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

In Re the Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission · filed 2007-05-29

Review of agency decisions following a contested-case hearing is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2006). ... On this record, the Commission’s decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse, modify, or remand an agency decision it finds arbitrary and capricious.

In Re Review of the 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Electric & Gas Utilities · filed 2008-05-06

Upon a conclusion that an agency has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, a reviewing court may reverse, modify, or “remand the case for further proceedings.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 requires a court to affirm an ALJ’s decision unless unlawful procedure, an error of law, or lack of substantial evidence prejudiced the relator’s substantial rights.

In Re Dw · filed 2009-06-09

On certiorari appeal, we will affirm the decision of an ALJ unless the relator's substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision was made upon unlawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or otherwise unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 requires affirmance of an ALJ’s decision unless unlawful procedure, legal error, or insufficient evidence has prejudiced the relator’s substantial rights.

In re the Risk Level Determination of D.W. · filed 2009-06-09

On certiorari appeal, we will affirm the decision of an ALJ unless the relator’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision was made upon unlawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or otherwise unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 generally provides for substantial-evidence review of agency decisions, but section 473.866 requires a preponderance of the evidence when reviewing a Metropolitan Council resolution.

City of Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council · filed 2004-02-25

We note that the legislature did provide specifically for a standard of proof in Minn.Stat. § 473.866, and that standard of proof is different from the standard of proof of “substantial evidence” provided generally under section 14.69. Thus, this court must determine that the evidence in the record meets a preponderance-of-evidence standard rather than a substantial-evidence standard.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of agency action when it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the entire record or is arbitrary or capricious.

Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly · filed 2010-01-12

In relevant part, we only reverse agency action when the "finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are ... unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or ... arbitrary or capricious." Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2008).

Section 14.69 directs courts reviewing final agency decisions to examine whether the decision involved unlawful procedure, legal error, insufficient evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

In Re Enlargement of the Valley Branch Watershed District · filed 2010-05-04

We, therefore, review the record to determine whether BWSR’s decision was made using an unlawful procedure, affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or 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 prejudice petitioners’ substantial rights.

In Re Excelsior Energy, Inc. · filed 2010-05-18

Our review of agency decisions is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2008). ... This 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 or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to affirm or remand an administrative decision, or to reverse or modify it when an error of law or insufficient evidence may have prejudiced the petitioners’ substantial rights.

Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District · filed 2011-08-01

A reviewing court may affirm a decision dismissing a complaint, remand for further proceedings, or “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” affected by error of law or “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2010).

Section 14.69 requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless it falls within one of the listed grounds for reversal, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Petition of Xcel Energy for Approval of the Acquisition of 600 MW of Wind Generation · filed 2015-02-09

This court will affirm an administrative agency’s decision unless its findings, inferences, conclusions, 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 (2014); see Minn. Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 1 (2014).

Section 14.69 allows a court to review a final administrative decision for lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of S. P. M. · filed 2015-03-23

If the ALJ did not err by finding ECRC’s determination to be erroneous, we then review whether the ALJ’s risk-level determination (1) violates a constitutional provision; (2) exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; (3) was made upon unlawful procedure; (4) reflects an error of law; (5) is “unsupported by substantial evidence”; or (6) is “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014). ... We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that special concerns 2 and 4 apply and that the ALJ’s risk-level II assignment to S.P.M. is not unreasonable or arbitrary.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to affirm, remand, reverse, or modify an agency decision when a listed defect, including arbitrary and capricious action, may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Nickijo L. Eichorn, Relator v. Itasca County Housing & Redevelopment Authority · filed 2015-06-01

“An agency’s quasi-judicial determinations will be upheld unless they are unconstitutional, outside the agency’s jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious.” Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014) (providing that reviewing court may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify administrative agency’s decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are unconstitutional, outside the agency’s jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious).

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision when a constitutional violation or error of law prejudices a party's substantial rights.

Scheffler v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2015-11-18

Here, the state district court had jurisdiction to reverse or modify the MDHS decision if substantial rights of the parties were prejudiced by a violation of the constitution or an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an administrative decision when legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action prejudices the petitioner’s substantial rights.

In the Matter of Kayvon Behnam, D. C., License No. 3644. · filed 2016-02-01(d)-(f)

This court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if the petitioner’s substantial rights are prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d)-(f) (2014). ... The record, which consists of testimony and documentary evidence from the first day of the contested hearing before the ALJ and relator’s stipulation to conduct that amounts to a violation of section 148.10, provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Section 14.69 limits review of an administrative decision to affirming, remanding, reversing, or modifying that decision.

Steven Abrahamson, Relators v. The St. Louis County School District, Independent School District No. 2142, Office of Administrative Hearings · filed 2016-04-04

Our review of the OAH decision is limited by Minnesota Statutes section 14.69 (2014) to affirming the decision, remanding the case for further proceedings, or reversing or modifying the decision.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for unlawful procedure, legal error, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious action, or action beyond the agency’s authority.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. of the Order of License Revocation and the Appeal by Yasmin Muhina Salim of the Disqualification Determination v. Commissioner of Human Services. · filed 2016-07-25

We presume that administrative-agency decisions are correct and reverse them “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 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 permits a court reviewing an agency decision to affirm, remand, reverse, or modify it when specified defects, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action, may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Ever Cat Fuels, LLC, Relator v. Ken Peterson, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Industry, State of Minnesota, Occupational Safety and Health Review Board, State of Minnesota · filed 2016-05-23

On certiorari appeal of the board’s final order, we may affirm, remand, 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 affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014).

Section 14.69 governs review of a county’s decision that an environmental impact statement is unnecessary. The decision receives substantial deference and may be set aside if arbitrary and capricious, based on legal error, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Re: Declaring a Negative Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Living Word Bible Camp Project. · filed 2014-07-21

A county’s decision to issue a negative declaration is reviewed as an agency decision under the standards articulated in the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), particularly Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2012). ... Under that standard, the county’s decision is entitled to substantial deference, and will be disturbed only upon a showing that the decision is arbitrary and capricious, based on an error of law, or not supported by substantial evidence.

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

In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134. · filed 2015-07-20

Minn. Stat. § 14.69. We may affirm the commissioner’s decision, remand for further proceedings, reverse, or modify the decision. Id.

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

In the Matter of 2015 Class C License Application of Dr. Mohamed El Deeb. · filed 2016-09-12

We review an agency’s decisions to determine whether the decision is (1) in violation of constitutional provisions, (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, (3) the product of unlawful procedure, (4) affected by an error of law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or (6) arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 directs a court to affirm an agency decision unless it is affected by legal error, lacks substantial evidence in the record, or is arbitrary and capricious.

In the Matter of the Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing and to Submit the Draft Little Rock Creek Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Temperature, and Fish Bioassessment Total Maximum Daily Load Study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Approval. · filed 2016-11-28(b)-(f)

We will affirm the MPCA’s decision unless its findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or are arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(b)-(f) (2014).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision on specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the License of Jeffrey L. Olson, Psy.D., L.P., License No. LP4532. · filed 2016-12-12

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); Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014).

Section 14.69 calls for affirming an ALJ’s decision unless it contains an error of law, lacks substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

In the Matter of: J.J.E., a minor through his parent and natural guardian Sherrie Williams, Relator v. Independent School District 279 (Osseo Area Public Schools), Office of Administrative Hearings · filed 2017-01-17

We will affirm an ALJ’s decision unless it reflects an error of law or is “unsupported by substantial evidence” or is “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2016).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify a contested-case agency decision when legal error or a lack of substantial evidence may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

In the Matter of the Correction Orders Issued to the Wealshire of Bloomington · filed 2024-02-14(d)-(e)

When reviewing an agency’s decision in a contested case, we may affirm, remand, 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 . . . unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted” or affected by error of law. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d)-(e) (2022).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the decision lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Serenity Adult Day Center of the Order of License Revocation License No. 1094723 (Rule ... · filed 2024-04-17

Appellate courts may reverse an agency decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudged because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) in violation of constitutional provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (f) arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2022). ... The commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and demonstrate that Serenity failed to satisfy the requirements of the conditional license. The record also reflects that the commissioner’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Thus, we defer to the commissioner’s findings and affirm the decision to revoke Serenity’s license.

Section 14.69 excludes equitable claims from judicial review of an agency appeal.

Brad Hammerberg, as trustee for the Leonard J. and Margaret T. Schubert Irrevocable Trust, dated June 23, 2005, ... · filed 2024-04-22

We also note that equitable claims are outside the scope of judicial review in an agency appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 governs judicial review of agency decisions and permits reversal or modification when a decision prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence in the record.

In the Appeal of Maren Erickson for Maltreatment of a Minor · filed 2024-05-13

We may affirm the agency’s decision or remand the case for further proceedings. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. This court may also reverse or modify the agency’s decision if the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the agency’s decision is, as relevant here, “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record[,] as submitted[.]” Id.; see also Zahler, 624 N.W.2d at 301.

Section 14.69 presumes an agency decision correct and permits reversal or modification on specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc · filed 2025-11-24

We presume the commissioner’s decision to be correct, though we may reverse or modify the commissioner’s decision if it “violates the constitution, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, is based on an erroneous theory of law, is not supported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious.” Mattice v. Minn. Prop. Ins. Placement, 655 N.W.2d 336, 339-40 (Minn. App. 2002) (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2002)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2003); see also In re Valley Branch Watershed Dist., 781 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Minn. App. 2010) (“An agency decision generally enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be reversed unless the party challenging the decision establishes one of the statutory bases for doing so.”).

Section 14.69 limits judicial review of agency decisions to specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Complaint of Troy Scheffler Regarding Representative Joshua Heintzeman and the Committee to Elect ... · filed 2026-01-12

As section 14.69 specifically provides, a reviewing court is limited to determining whether the agency decision is: (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.

Section 14.69 calls for substantial deference to agency decisions and places the burden of showing agency error on relators.

In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. · filed 2019-06-03

Appellate courts "accord substantial deference to the agency's decision." Id. at 833. The burden is on relators to demonstrate agency error. Id.

Section 14.69(c) and (d) permits a reviewing court to consider whether an agency decision was made under an unlawful procedure or affected by an error of law.

In re: The Matter of T. M. and the Commissioner Jodi Harpstead · filed 2024-03-18(c), (d)

The district court has the authority to consider whether the agency’s decision was made under an unlawful procedure or was affected by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(c), (d) (2022). When a party alleges that the department made a procedural or legal error, courts are not bound by the department’s decision, and they instead review the issue de novo.

Section 14.69 permits a court to overturn a hearing examiner’s decision only on the grounds it lists.

STATE BY GOMEZ-BETHKE v. Eastern Air Lines · filed 1984-03-21

The examiner’s decision to dismiss may not be overturned unless it falls within one of the Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982) categories.

Section 14.69(d) permits relief when legal error in an agency decision prejudices a party’s rights.

Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources · filed 1984-10-16(d)

Appellant is also entitled to relief if his rights are prejudiced because the administrative decision is affected by an “error of law.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d) (1982).

Section 14.69(b) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.

Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1984-11-30(b)

On appeal from the MPUC this court may reverse the decision of the agency on, among other grounds, its decision is “in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency” see Minn.Stat. § 14.69(b) (1982).

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse an agency decision made through unlawful procedure or affected by an error of law.

Hough Transit, Ltd. v. Harig · filed 1985-08-20

By ignoring the law of the case, the second representative’s decision was made upon unlawful procedure and affected by an error of law.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure or affected by an error of law.

Henry v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1985-10-29

This court can reverse the agency’s decision if it is made upon unlawful procedure or affected by other error of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that is arbitrary and capricious, made upon unlawful procedure, or affected by other errors of law.

Yellowbird, Inc. v. MSP Express, Inc. · filed 1985-11-26

This court may reverse an agency’s decision if we find it is arbitrary and capricious, made upon unlawful procedure, or affected by other errors of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984). ... The Board’s decision was both arbitrary and capricious and based upon unlawful procedure. We reverse and remand to give the Board an opportunity to follow proper procedure and to make a reasoned decision.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or remand an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious or affected by an error of law.

Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone · filed 1985-12-13

We may reverse or remand an agency's decision if we find it is arbitrary or capricious or affected by other error of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69. ... We reverse and remand to give the MPUC the opportunity to develop appropriate articulable standards, to remedy the inconsistency between its motion and order, and to make new findings and conclusions.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision affected by an erroneous interpretation of law or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Smith v. State · filed 1986-06-24

We will reverse the administrative decision only if the decision is affected by an erroneous interpretation of the law or is unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an administrative decision affected by an erroneous interpretation of law or unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Herman v. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department · filed 1985-08-20(d), (e)

Our standard of review is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984) which provides in part that this court may reverse an administrative decision if it is affected by an erroneous interpretation of the law or is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.

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

Application of Orr · filed 1986-11-25

An appellate court may reverse the agency’s decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence of record or if the court finds it is arbitrary and capricious or affected by other errors of law. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision if it is arbitrary or affected by other errors of law.

Brooks v. RAMSEY CTY. COMM. HUMAN SERV. · filed 1987-05-12

We may reverse the agency's decision if we find it is arbitrary or affected by other errors of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision if it is arbitrary or affected by other errors of law.

Brooks v. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department · filed 1987-05-12

We may reverse the agency’s decision if we find it is arbitrary or affected by other errors of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986).

Section 14.69(d) and (e) allows reversal of an agency decision for legal error or lack of substantial evidence in the full record.

Wulke v. Hennepin County Welfare Board · filed 1987-08-04(d), (e)

Under Minn.Stat. § 14.69(d) and (e) (1984), an agency's determination may be reversed if it is “affected by an erroneous interpretation of the law or is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.”

Section 14.69(d) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when an error of law may have prejudiced the petitioners’ substantial rights.

Petition of Fritz Trucking, Inc. · filed 1987-06-09(d)

The scope of judicial review for agency decisions is provided by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). The court may reverse if the petitioners’ substantial rights may have been prejudiced by error of law. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d).

Section 14.69(d) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision for an error of law; courts review legal issues without deferring to the agency.

State Ex Rel. Khalifa v. Parkshore Estates, Inc. · filed 1987-10-13(d)

Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d) (1984). In reviewing issues of law, we are not bound by the decision of the agency and need not defer to the agency’s expertise.

Section 14.69 does not require a rehearing for an agency’s reliance on material from rulemaking history when that reliance causes no prejudicial error.

Luther Haven Nursing Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1988-05-31

Reliance on this study does not rise to the level of prejudicial error requiring a rehearing.

Section 14.69(b) allows a court to review whether an agency decision exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.

In Re De Laria Transport, Inc. · filed 1988-08-23(b)

The scope of our review of the Board’s decision is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which indicates that we may determine whether the decision of the administrative agency is in excess of its statutory authority or jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. § 14.69(b) (1986).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence, are arbitrary and capricious, or are legally erroneous.

Kolstad v. Fairway Foods, Inc. · filed 1990-07-03

This court may reverse or modify administrative agency decisions for cases brought under Minn.Stat. § 363.071, subd. 2 (1986), when the administrative findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or in error as a matter of law.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or the decision rests on an error of law.

In Re Combined Air & Solid Waste Permit No. 2211-91-OT-1 · filed 1992-08-25

Agency decisions are presumed to be correct by reviewing courts, and will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or when the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or are arbitrary and capricious. ... Regardless of whether the decision is arbitrary and capricious, it cannot stand because it is unsupported by substantial evidence and is based on an error of law.

Section 14.69(d) permits reversal of an administrative decision affected by an error of law.

Schoen v. County of St. Louis · filed 1989-11-28(d)

Judicial review of an administrative decision is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 which provides that an agency decision may be reversed if it was affected by an error of law.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision for specified defects, including an error of law.

Fahey v. Avnet, Inc. · filed 1994-12-20

This court may reverse or modify an AL J’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 (1992).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of a city council decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Claim of City of Mankato v. Mahoney · filed 1996-02-06(e), (f)

A city council’s decision may be modified or reversed if it is “Unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire ... record as submitted” or “[arbitrary or capricious.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(e), (f) (1994).

Section 14.69(b) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Byers · filed 1996-04-02(b)

On appeal, this court may reverse the decision of the agency if its decision is “in ... excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency.”

Section 14.69(e)-(f) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence in the full record or is arbitrary or capricious.

Johnson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1997-06-10(e)-(f)

Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e)-(f) (1996) provides that this court may reverse or modify an agency decision if the decision was “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted” or “[a]rbitrary or capricious.” ... Because the evidence does not support the chief appeals referee’s conclusions that Johnson failed to establish that the HiRider was medically necessary and the least expensive appropriate alternative, the chief appeals referee’s denial of Johnson’s request for prior authorization for medical assistance funds to purchase a HiRider was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s authority, lacks substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

In re the Resolution of the City of Austin · filed 1997-08-06

Substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s determination that a new grade crossing is necessary, and the commissioner’s decision is not arbitrary or capricious. The commissioner, however, exceeded his authority in determining that construction of the city’s proposed grade crossing without compensation to Soo Line is not an unconstitutional taking of property.

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.

City of Minneapolis v. State · filed 2000-01-18

This court reviews decisions by the MPCA to issue permits in light of Minn.Stat. § 14.69(a)-(e) (1998). ... 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.

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

Mattice v. Minnesota Property Insurance Placement · filed 2002-12-24

We may reverse a decision by the Commissioner of Commerce if the decision violates the constitution, exceeds the agency's statutory authority or jurisdiction, is based on an erroneous theory of law, is not supported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(a), (b), (e), (f) (2002); Markwardt v. State, Water Resources Bd., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn.1977).

Section 14.69 limits reversal of an agency decision to specified grounds, including unlawful procedures, legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

In Re ZK · filed 2005-05-17

A reviewing court may reverse an administrative agency's decision only if the decision violates a constitutional provision, is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, is based on unlawful procedures, reflects an error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004).

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

Bloomquist v. Commissioner of Natural Resources · filed 2005-09-27

We may reverse or modify an agency’s decision only if it is in violation of a constitutional provision, 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 and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for legal error, arbitrary or capricious findings, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Card v. KANDIYOHI CTY. BD. OF COM'RS · filed 2006-05-11

Agency decisions are reversed when they reflect an error of law, the findings are arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for an error of law, arbitrary and capricious findings, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners · filed 2006-05-11

Agency decisions are reversed when they reflect an error of law, the findings are arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when the challenger establishes an error of law, a lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

In Re Appeal of Decision of Commissioner of Human Services · filed 2006-12-19

We may reverse only if the challenging party establishes that the agency’s decision contains errors of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004); In re Kindt, 542 N.W.2d 391, 394 (Minn.App.1996).

Section 14.69 provides for reversal of an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

In Re the Enlargement & Increasing the Number of Managers of the Brown's Creek Watershed District · filed 2001-09-11

Under Minn.Stat. § 14.69, BWSR’s decision will be reversed if it exceeds BWSR’s statutory authority.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that is arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

In the Matter of Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Gail Burke · filed 2003-08-05

Administrative-agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness 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. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2002) (also' providing for reversal or modification if decision is in violation of constitutional provisions); ... The commissioner’s decision to terminate Burke’s daycare business by revoking her license was initially based on several erroneous grounds, and is too severe, and is not supported by the record.

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

In Re the Claim for Benefits by Meuleners · filed 2006-12-19(e), (f)

Courts will reverse or modify an agency decision if the agency’s findings and inferences are not supported by substantial evidence or its decision is arbitrary and capricious. ... The panel’s decision to deny relator’s application for continued employer-provided health benefits was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 14.69 allows reversal of an agency decision on six grounds, including legal error, and places the burden on the challenging party to establish a ground for reversal.

Fish v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2008-05-06

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2006). The burden is on the party challenging the commissioner’s decision to show that the decision should be reversed on at least one of those six grounds.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision when the agency exceeds its statutory authority.

In Re an Investigation Into the Commission's Jurisdiction Over the Hutchinson's Intrastate Natural Gas Pipeline · filed 2005-12-27

We, therefore, reverse the agency determination as provided under Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse agency action that exceeds the agency’s jurisdiction or is arbitrary or capricious.

In Re Northern States Power Co. · filed 2009-12-01

The Administrative Procedure Act states that a reviewing court may reverse an agency’s decision if it concludes that the agency’s actions were: ... (f) arbitrary or capricious. ... MPUC’s review and determination that the plan will not impose excessive costs on Xcel’s customers was a reasonable exercise of its discretion and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 requires a party seeking reversal of an agency decision to show grounds such as legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

In Re Rosckes v. County of Carver · filed 2010-06-08

Reversal is appropriate only when the challenging party shows that the agency’s decision contains errors of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision when legal error or arbitrary and capricious action prejudices a party’s substantial rights.

Young v. Jesson · filed 2011-04-12

This court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision on appeal if it determines that a party’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the agency decision violated a constitutional provision, exceeded the agency’s authority, was made through unlawful procedure, was unsupported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, or was affected by an error of law. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2010). ... Because the commissioner’s decision was affected by legal error, we reverse and remand to the district court for an order requiring the county to execute a contract with appellant’s chosen qualified provider.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision affected by legal error, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious.

In Re Request for Issuance of the SDS General Permit MNG300000 · filed 2009-07-28(d)-(f)

We may reverse or modify the agency’s decision if the agency’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify a PERA board decision only if a listed defect may have prejudiced the relators’ substantial rights.

In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees · filed 2012-08-06

Accordingly, this court may reverse or modify a decision by the board only 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.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision affected by legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

In re the Decision on the Approval for Submittal of a 401 Water Quality Certification · filed 2012-11-13(d)-(f)

“We may reverse or modify the agency’s decision if the agency’s findings, conclusions, or decisions are affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or arbitrary or capricious.” SDS Permit Opinion, 769 N.W.2d at 317 (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d)-(f)).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and may have prejudiced an appellant’s substantial rights.

In Re Haslund · filed 2010-04-29

We reverse an agency's decision when an appellant's substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the agency's decision exceeds the agency's statutory authority. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2008).

Section 14.69(b) permits review of whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority, including by considering an untimely complaint.

Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District · filed 2012-08-10(b)

Our review is governed by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2010). ... Because Minn.Stat. § 211B.32, subd. 2, requires the complaint to have been filed within one year of the publication of statement one, the ALJ lacked statutory authority to consider it.

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

In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP · filed 2014-05-19

Under the APA, we may affirm the commissioner’s decision, remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or are arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2012). ... Moreover, because the commissioner was keenly aware of the issue and made a final decision based on the complete record, Reichmann has failed to establish the requisite prejudice.

Section 14.69 permits an appellate court to reverse or modify a contested-case agency decision when an agency exceeds its statutory authority and the petitioner's substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation · filed 2016-12-05

Under MAPA, an appellate court may overturn or modify an administrative agency’s final decision in a contested case if the substantial rights of the petitioners 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.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when the relator’s substantial rights are prejudiced by legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Lewison v. Hutchinson · filed 2019-05-13

We will reverse or modify the decision only if the relators' substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, *448or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5 (2018) (providing for judicial review under Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2018) ).

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify a decision that is arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mankato Motorsports Park. ... · filed 2023-11-27

We may reverse or modify the city’s decision if it is, among other things, “arbitrary or capricious” or unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or remand of an agency decision only when a listed defect, such as legal error or insufficient evidence, prejudices the relator’s substantial rights.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney General Keith Ellison, ... · filed 2024-01-16

An appellate court can reverse or remand only if the substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced because the decision was (1) in violation of constitutional provisions, (2) in excess of the authority of the agency, (3) made through an unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence, or (6) arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2022); see Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5 (2022) (providing for judicial review of OAH determinations of election-law violations via Minn. Stat. § 14.69).

Section 14.69 permits reversal of a commission decision for constitutional or legal error, excess of authority, unlawful procedure, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota. ... · filed 2024-09-09

Under MAPA, a commission decision may be reversed if the decision violates constitutional provisions or other law, is in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction, made upon unlawful procedure, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision for legal error or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

In the Matter of the Licensing Order Issued to North Sierra Construction, LLC, and Louis Dee Sierra · filed 2026-03-16

Because the commissioner’s determination that relators had to comply with rule 1350.3800 was based on substantial evidence in the record and there was no legal error, relators have not demonstrated a basis for us to reverse on this issue.

Section 14.69 permits reversal for an agency error of law only if the error may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

In re the Matter of: Verdell Fredrick Borth v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Carver County · filed 2017-02-13

Moreover, to the extent that we assume the commissioner made an error of law in failing to apply SSI criteria, that error did not prejudice Borth’s substantial rights because application of the SSI criteria does not change his household size.

Section 14.69 warrants reversal for an interpretive error only if the error affected the agency’s decision.

In the Matter of Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for PolyMet Mining, Inc., City of Hoyt Lakes, St. ... · filed 2023-12-18

Even if the coalition is correct, reversal is warranted only if the error “affected” the agency’s decision. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. We are not persuaded that it did.

Section 14.69(b) permits reversal of an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and may prejudice a petitioner’s substantial rights.

City of Eden Prairie v. Travis R. Serafin, Relator, Public Employees Retirement Association, ... · filed 2024-04-22(b)

Appellate courts may affirm or remand for further proceedings, or they may reverse or modify an agency’s decision “if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: . . . in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(b). ... Because the ALJ did not have the statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 1(b), to decide whether Serafin had contractually waived his claim to continued health-insurance coverage, we reverse the ALJ’s decision.

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights through legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Sheena Haack of the Order of License Revocation · filed 2024-05-06(d)-(f)

We conclude that the commissioner’s decision that Haack’s supervision plan was not “appropriate” under the circumstances is legally correct, supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights when the decision lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Record of Decision for the Hamline Midway Library EAW · filed 2024-06-17(e)-(f)

We conclude that the city’s decision that an EIS is not required is not arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the record does not present “a combination of danger signals” to otherwise support our intervention.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when a constitutional violation or lack of substantial evidence may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Reynolds v. Shireen Gandhi, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, ... · filed 2026-04-06(a), (e)

Under that standard, we may reverse or modify an administrative-agency decision if, among other reasons, the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because the decision was “in violation of constitutional provisions” or was “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(a), (e).

Section 14.69 allows a court to reverse an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious.

Draganosky v. Minnesota Board of Psychology · filed 1984-06-26

Although administrative decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness, a reviewing court cannot allow an agency decision which is arbitrary and capricious to stand. ... On the facts of this case, the denial of a variance for licensure as a licensed consulting psychologist was arbitrary and capricious. We remand to the Board with the direction to grant a variance.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse an agency decision when arbitrary or capricious action may have prejudiced a petitioner’s substantial rights.

Burnett v. Stearns County Welfare Board · filed 1985-07-02

The Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act, Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1982), governs judicial review in this case. ... A reviewing, court may reverse or modify an agency decision if the substantial rights of a petitioner may have been prejudiced because the decision was arbitrary or capricious. ... Having failed to make such a showing, we hold that the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and order it to grant Burnett a one-step merit increase retroactive to her anniversary date of August 4, 1984.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an arbitrary or capricious agency decision; an agency does not act arbitrarily by rejecting an administrative law judge’s recommendation while adopting the findings if it explains its reasons.

Petition of American Freight Systems, Inc. · filed 1986-01-14(f)

We conclude that because the Board explained its reasons for rejecting the administrative law judge’s recommendations, it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by adopting the administrative law judge’s findings but not his recommendation.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that reflects the agency’s will rather than its judgment.

Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching · filed 1984-08-21

The Board’s decision represented its will, not its judgment, and is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal of an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency changes its prior standard without explaining why.

Central Telephone Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1984-10-09(f)

A decision by the Commission may be overturned if that decision was arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.-69(f) (1982). ... Moreover, the Commission did not discuss these cases in adopting its new burden of proof and thus did not give reasons for departing from its prior norms and decisions. Applying new standards in this matter was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to set aside an important agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency fails to provide written findings and reasons.

Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · filed 1985-03-05

A decision of this magnitude not supported by written findings and reasons is arbitrary and capricious because “it represents the agency’s will rather than its judgment.” ... Therefore, we hold that an agency decision should normally be supported by written findings and reasons, in more than just a conclusory fashion, before expecting the order or decision to be sustained on appeal.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal of an agency decision that is arbitrary and capricious.

Matter of Whitehead · filed 1987-01-20(f)

Because we have concluded that the commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in disregarding maps filed in compliance with Minn.Stat. § 237.16, subd. 2, the decision must be reversed. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f) (1984).

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse or modify an arbitrary or capricious agency decision if it may have prejudiced a petitioner's substantial rights.

Rindahl v. St. Louis County Welfare Board · filed 1989-03-28

On appeal, 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: ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1986). ... Because the attribution of all of appellants' income to Dwight Rindahl is neither contrary to law nor arbitrary or capricious and because Minnesota family property law is not applicable to a situation not involving an annulment, dissolution or separation, we must, regrettably, affirm.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal when an agency decision is arbitrary or capricious, meaning it reflects the agency’s will rather than its judgment.

In Re Occupational License of Hutchinson · filed 1989-05-23(f)

Appellant also argues that the Commission’s decision should be reversed because it is arbitrary and capricious. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f) (1988). An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious when it represents the agency’s will and not its judgment. Markwardt v. State, Water Resources Board, 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn. 1977). Because the Commission followed proper procedures and its decision was based on substantial evidence, the Commission’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal of arbitrary or capricious agency action when the agency fails to take a hard look at material issues.

In re Amendment No. 4 to Air Emission Facility Permit No. 2021-85-OT-1 · filed 1990-01-23(f)

Part of that Act provides that agency decisions may be reversed if they are “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f) (1988); ... The record discloses numerous instances where MPCA made its decision without taking a hard look at the issue as required by law.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal of an arbitrary or capricious agency decision, one that reflects the agency’s will rather than its judgment.

Contested Cases of Rem-Canby, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1993-01-07(f)

An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious when it represents the agency’s will and not its judgment. ... Because there is no showing that the commissioner’s decision here represents the department’s will and not its judgment, it is not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal of an agency decision that is arbitrary or capricious; an agency’s explanation for its decision can show that it exercised judgment.

Application of Q Petroleum · filed 1993-04-20(f)

An agency decision is arbitrary or capricious where “its determination represents its will and not its judgment.” ... Accordingly, we hold the Board did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in tabling the applications.

Section 14.69(f) applies the arbitrary or capricious standard to judicial review of contested cases.

In Re the License Application of Rochester Ambulance Service · filed 1993-05-11(f)

The arbitrary or capricious standard applies to the review of contested eases. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f). ... Based on the evidence before the Commissioner, we cannot say her decision is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision if it is arbitrary or capricious.

In Re the Joint Petition of Rochester Express Limousine Service, Inc. · filed 1993-11-23

A reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision if the decision is ... (f) Arbitrary or capricious. ... The Board’s decision denying relators’ petition to intervene in the contested case proceeding was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal or remand when an arbitrary or capricious agency decision may have prejudiced a petitioner’s substantial rights.

In Re Assessment Issued to Leisure Hills Health Care Center on March 2, 1992 · filed 1994-06-21(f)

We may reverse or remand an agency decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative decision was arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f) (1992). ... Because Leisure Hills provides no basis for finding the Department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an arbitrary or capricious agency decision; an agency’s reasoned choice supported by sufficient reasons survives review.

Petition of Minnesota Power · filed 1996-03-19

These reasons provide sufficient support for the MPUC’s decision. The MPUC considered the issues, made judgments on the arguments raised by the parties, and explained its reasoning, thereby issuing a reasoned, rather than an arbitrary decision.

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

Boily v. Commissioner of Economic Security · filed 1995-06-13

On review, the court may reverse the Commissioner’s decision if substantial rights of the relator were prejudiced because the administrative findings or conclusions were in excess of the agency’s authority or jurisdiction, were in violation of constitutional provisions, were made upon unlawful procedure, were affected by other error of law, were arbitrary or capricious, or if the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1994). ... Here, the Commissioner’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. There is an absence of evidence to show the contracting dentists are employees and substantial evidence supporting the 1988 audit making a contrary determination.

Section 14.69(f) permits reversal of an arbitrary or capricious agency decision when the agency significantly departs from an ALJ’s recommendation without explaining why.

CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2001-09-11(f)

Reviewing courts may reverse an agency’s decision if the decision is arbitrary or capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69(f) (2000). ... Respondent significantly deviated from the ALJ’s recommendations without explaining why the ALJ’s recommendations were rejected or making additional findings to support this disposition. At a minimum, a business owner with property rights in the form of government licenses is entitled to know the reasons for adverse action by the city council. We therefore hold that the absence of such findings renders the respondent city’s decision arbitrary and capricious, and we reverse and remand for additional proceedings and to permit respondent to make appropriate findings explaining its decision.

Section 14.69 permits reversal when an agency decision prejudices substantial rights because it is arbitrary or capricious.

Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul · filed 2002-06-04

Decisions of administrative agencies, including cities, are presumed to be correct, and this court will reverse or modify an agency decision only if a party’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision exceeded the agency’s statutory authority, was made upon unlawful procedure, was affected by other error of law, or was arbitrary or capricious. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2000) (enumerating criteria for judicial review of agency decisions); ... Because we believe that the letter should have been part of the record, and because the city council member failed to acknowledge the content of the letter, the council's decision failed to consider an important aspect of the problem and was, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 permits a court to uphold an agency decision against an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge when the agency considers the governing factors and articulates a rational connection between its findings and its decision.

In Re Universal Underwriters Life Insurance Co. · filed 2004-08-10

The record demonstrates a consideration of the statutory factors, and respondent articulated a rational connection between the facts it found and the choice it made. See In re Excess Surplus, 624 N.W.2d at 277 (agency’s conclusions not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated). We see no basis for reversing the order.

Section 14.69 permits review of an agency decision for arbitrariness or caprice; a reasoned choice between opposing views is not arbitrary or capricious.

In Re Detailing Criteria & Standards for Measuring an Electric Utility's Good Faith Efforts in Meeting the Renewable Ene · filed 2005-07-26

An agency decision is not arbitrary and capricious if the agency, presented with opposing points of view, reaches a reasoned decision that rejects one point of view.

Section 14.69 permits a court to reverse an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious when the agency relies on a factor the governing statute does not authorize.

In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan · filed 2007-04-03

Courts will overturn an agency decision if it is arbitrary and capricious. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004). An agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious if it relied on factors not intended by the legislature. ... Because we conclude that the panel relied on a factor not authorized by the statute, we reverse.

An agency that departs from its prior norms or decisions must give a reasoned explanation that is not arbitrary or capricious.

In Re the Review of the 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Electric & Gas Utilities · filed 2009-07-16(f)

Accordingly, we conclude that an agency must generally conform to its prior norms and decisions or, to the extent that it departs from its prior norms and decisions, the agency must set forth a reasoned analysis for the departure that is not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69(f) permits review of an agency decision for arbitrary or capricious action; a decision supported by careful consideration and an explained rationale is not arbitrary.

In re Minnesota Power · filed 2011-12-05(f)

“An agency’s determination is arbitrary and capricious when, it represents the agency’s will and not its judgment.” ... The record shows that the commission carefully considered and articulated its basis for applying a 40% reduction to the interim-rate request. ... Accordingly, we reject Minnesota Power’s argument that the commission acted arbitrarily in setting interim rates.

Section 14.69 does not require an agency to explain a departure from earlier decisions that are not on point to avoid arbitrary-and-capricious reversal.

In Re Qwest's Performance Assurance Plan · filed 2010-06-08

Because NSP Merger does not constitute on-point precedent in this case, respondent did not arbitrarily and capriciously depart from existing precedent simply because it did not explain why it was not following NSP Merger.

Section 14.69 allows review of an agency decision for arbitrary or capricious action; reliance on older data is permissible when the calculation does not depend on current data.

In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing · filed 2019-02-04

Accordingly, this court reviews the decision to determine whether relator's substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the decision is in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. ... For this reason, the MPCA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by relying on the 2008 and 2009 data.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of a contested-case agency decision when substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the decision is arbitrary or capricious.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Crawford House, LLC, of the Order Of License Revocation License Nos. 1073328 (HCBS) ... · filed 2024-01-22

A decision is arbitrary and capricious when (1) the agency “relied on factors not intended by the legislature,” (2) the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,” or (3) “the decision is so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the agency’s expertise.” ... In sum, Crawford does not persuade us that DHS’s decision to revoke Crawford’s licenses was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69(f) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings, inferences, or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Primrose School of Arden Hills and Shoreview of the Order of License Revocation. ... · filed 2024-04-22(f)

This court may reverse an agency decision if the agency’s findings, inferences, or conclusions are “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(f). ... Because the commissioner considered the ALJ’s recommendations and provided adequate explanations and support for each of the findings and determinations in the amended final order, we conclude that the amended final order was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification of an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it is arbitrary or capricious.

In the Matter of the Appeal by Kehinde Yusuf and Caring for Adults of the Order of License Revocation of the Adult ... · filed 2024-11-18(f)

An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is an exercise of the agency’s will, rather than its judgment, or if the decision is based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons.

Section 14.69 allows a court reviewing a contested case to consider a rule’s validity when the issue was properly raised at the hearing and fully briefed.

Broen Memorial Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 1985-03-12

This court may consider the validity of a rule if the matter was properly raised in a contested case hearing and fully briefed. See, e.g., Blocher Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 347 N.W.2d 88 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see also Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984).

Section 14.69 permits a court to remand an agency case for further proceedings after review.

Five Star Trucking, Inc. v. Minnesota Transportation Regulation Board · filed 1985-07-02

This court may remand a case for further proceedings after review. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1984). The motion for remand was denied because remand before oral argument would be premature.

Section 14.69 authorizes a reviewing court to remand, reverse, or modify an agency decision, but does not authorize vacating an MPUC order because its rates are unreasonable.

Application of Minnegasco · filed 1997-02-26

Chapter 14 authorizes this court to remand, reverse, or modify an agency decision. Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1996). No longer may an MPUC order be “vacated” on appeal upon a determination that rates are unreasonable.

Section 14.69 permits remand when an agency’s explanation is too limited for the court to determine whether its decision is arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence.

In Re the Expulsion of N.Y.B. · filed 2008-06-10

We cannot affirm the school board’s decision to expel N.Y.B. for one calendar year because the school board failed to explain its decision, as required by the PFDA. But we also cannot hold, as N.Y.B. urges, that the school board’s decision was either arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial record evidence. We, therefore, remand and direct the school board to explain its decision in “sufficient detail” to comply with Minn.Stat. § 121A.47, subd. 13.

Section 14.69 permits remand when unlawful agency procedure prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights, including the right to required procedural rules.

Hanna Mining Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1985-10-22

The statutory right to rules constitutes a substantial right of Hanna, Eveleth and Reserve, which was prejudiced by the MPUC’s failure to adopt rules. Therefore, we remand.

Section 14.69(c) permits reversal of an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure.

Hiawatha Aviation of Rochester, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Health · filed 1985-12-19(c)

Here, the Commissioner failed to consider the record as evidenced by the Commissioner’s appellate motion and affidavit stating she did not even know a record of the hearings existed. Her decision was, therefore, “[m]ade upon unlawful procedure.” Minn.Stat. § 14.69(c).

Section 14.69 permits remand when improper agency procedure prejudices a party’s substantial rights.

Northern Messenger, Inc. v. Airport Couriers, Inc. · filed 1984-12-18

The exclusion of witnesses on the essential issue of whether there were adequate existing services prejudiced Northern Messenger’s substantial rights and constituted improper procedure.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification for a procedural violation only when the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

E.N. v. Special School District No. 1 · filed 1999-12-21

Section 14.69, which governs the scope of judicial review under the APA, provides this court the authority to reverse or modify a deci...sion only when “substantial rights’ of a petitioner have been prejudiced by a violation of procedure.

Section 14.69 permits reversal or modification for a procedural error only when it may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

In the Matter of the Wetland Conservation Act appeal filed by William T. Fisher of a no-loss decision, located in Section 5, T.119N, R.24W, Rockford Township, Wright County. · filed 2017-01-30

It is, however, unlikely that this defect could have prejudiced Fisher’s substantial rights to the extent warranting a modification or reversal of the BWSR’s decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 places the burden on a party challenging an agency decision to prove that the agency violated one or more of its provisions.

Contested Case of Laura Baker School Ass'n v. Department of Human Services · filed 1985-11-19

Relator has the burden of proving that the agency violated one or more of the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 places the burden on a petitioner to show that an agency decision meets a ground for reversal or modification.

In re the Registration of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-09-26

We conclude that appellant has not met its burden of proving that the agency’s conclusions violate any of the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 places the burden on the party seeking review to show that an agency decision violates one of its listed grounds for relief.

In Re the Joint Petition of Space Center Transport · filed 1989-10-19

The party seeking review of the agency action has the burden of proving that the agency’s conclusions violate one or more of the provisions of section 14.69. ... The relators have not met their burden of proving that the MTRB’s conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence or are arbitrary and capricious.

Section 14.69 places the burden on a relator challenging an agency decision to show grounds for reversal.

Matter of University of Minnesota · filed 1997-07-08

The relators have the burden of proof on appeal when challenging an agency decision under Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69 places the burden on a party seeking judicial review to show that an agency decision meets a statutory ground for relief.

Info Tel Communications, LLC v. U.S. West Communications, Inc. · filed 1999-05-04

The party seeking review on appeal has the burden of proving that the agency decision meets one or more of the above-listed statutory criteria.

A relator challenging an agency decision on appeal bears the burden of proof.

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · filed 2003-05-06

The relator has the burden of proof when challenging an agency decision in an appeal.

Section 14.69 places the burden on the party seeking review to establish that an agency decision violates one of its grounds for reversal.

In Re the Appeal of the Exclusion of Molnar · filed 2006-09-05

The party seeking review thus bears the burden of establishing that the decision violates one or more of the provisions of section 14.69.

Section 14.69 places the burden on the party seeking review to show that an agency decision violates a ground for reversal.

In Re the Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota · filed 2000-04-25

On appeal, the party seeking review bears the burden of proving the agency’s decision violates one or more provisions of Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69’s review standard does not apply to appeals from unemployment benefit determinations under section 268.10, subdivision 8.

Dura Supreme v. Kienholz · filed 1986-02-11

The above procedure for review, however, is contained within a section of the statute specifically concerning the determination whether an employing unit should be classified as an “employer” for purposes of the unemployment compensation statutes. ... This court has consistently adhered' to the scope of review enunciated in Lumpkin and its progeny. We decline to deviate from that line of cases here.

Section 14.69 governs judicial review of contested cases under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In re Mostrom · filed 1986-07-29

The above provision governs this court’s review of contested eases under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the present situation, Mostrom waived any right to a contested case hearing and, instead, admitted the truth of the board’s allegations by means of a stipulation.

Section 14.69 does not govern review of a non-statewide agency's decision when no contested case hearing was conducted.

Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n · filed 1995-06-06

Axelson contends that the scope of review is dictated by Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1994). We disagree. The Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) does not apply because the MTRFA does not have statewide jurisdiction. ... Moreover, a contested case hearing was not conducted.

Section 14.69 supplies the standard for judicial review when the Minnesota State Retirement System Board refers a matter for an administrative hearing under section 352.031, subdivision 10.

In re the Retirement Benefits of Yetka · filed 1996-09-10

We, therefore, use the section 14.69 standard of re-view because the MSRS Board referred the matter to the office of administrative hearings under Minn.Stat. § 352.031, subd. 10, which incorporates by reference the statutory standard.

Section 14.69's standards of review can apply to an environmental agency's decision even when there was no contested case proceeding.

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · filed 2002-05-23

We also believe that in an area such as environmental review, uniquely involving application of an agency's expertise, technical training, and experience, the standard of review set forth in MAPA is appropriate. Therefore, despite the fact that a contested case proceeding was not held in this case, we believe application of the MAPA standards is appropriate. See Minn.Stat. § 14.69.

Section 14.69’s standard of review can apply to a noncontested agency decision involving agency expertise when the parties advocate for its application.

In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota · filed 2013-09-18

But we have previously applied the standard in Minn. Stat. § 14.69 even though there was not á contested case when the decision under review "involv[ed] application of an agency’s expertise, technical training, and experience” and the parties advocate for the application of section 14.69.

Section 14.69 applies to appeals from final decisions in contested case proceedings, not to pre-enforcement declaratory judgment challenges to rules.

Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · filed 2015-02-17

But section 14.69 applies only on appeal from a final decision in contested case proceedings conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63–.68 (2014). Because this statute is not applicable to a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment proceeding, we decline to consider these additional arguments.

Section 14.69 governs judicial review of agency decisions in contested cases, but does not apply to the tax court’s review of the Commissioner of Revenue’s audit decisions.

Conga Corporation, d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. · filed 2015-08-05

Consequently, the legal standard for review of an agency decision in a contested case, as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.69, does not apply to the tax court’s review of the Commissioner’s audit decisions in proceedings before the tax court.

Section 14.69’s substantial evidence test does not govern review of a PUC rate design decision made in its legislative role.

In re Summary Investigation into Intrastate Switched Access Charges Proposed by Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. for its · filed 1987-03-17

Therefore, since this is a rate design case, the PUC will be reversed if the DPS demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence the PUC order setting revenues at 1984 levels is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. ... We find NWB’s revenue increase was based on authorized rates and is thus not subject to review under the substantial evidence test.

Section 14.69 requires review of the MPUC’s legislative action for excess statutory authority and its quasi-judicial action for substantial evidence.

Minnesota Department of Public Service v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission · filed 1998-01-08

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.