Legal Opinion
Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 2, 2004No. A03-845PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
On appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Cambridge Housing and Redevelopment Authority argues that the order should be reversed as a matter of law because the exclusive remedy for Sandy Tischer’s breach-of-contract claim is a writ of certio-rari to the court of appeals. We agree. Absent statutory authority for a different process, a timely petition for a writ of certiorari is the exclusive method of obtaining judicial review for public-sector employment termination. Because Minn. Stat. § 469.014 (2002) does not authorize district…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Honn v. City of Coon RapidsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Dietz v. Dodge CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of CambridgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- R.G.C. v. Minnesota Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of CambridgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of CambridgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005