Legal Opinion
In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 3, 2019No. A18-1283; A18-1291; A18-1292PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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 ; see Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 10 (directing review under MAPA). "Substantial evidence consists of: 1) such relevant…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. BuseyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
- Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. SalazarCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Bureau of Land ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Cottonwood County’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Sioux Rock Quarry ...Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025
- Record of Decision for the Hamline Midway Library EAWCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
- Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of EngineersDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of EngineersDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2022