Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co.

8 Citing cases

  1. In re New Am. Dev. Ctr. Appeal of MDE-NPS

    No. A22-1506 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    the basis for [an] action" subject to administrative review. 7 C.F.R. § 226.6(k)(5)(i); see also Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co., 316 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1982) (stating that when "a . . . rule provides the manner, form, and time of notice, the notice must conform with the prescribed provisions" (quotation omitted)). "[Q]uasi-judicial proceedings do not invoke the full panoply of procedures required" to satisfy due process "in regular judicial proceedings."

  2. Matter of Kindt

    542 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 19 times
    Finding notice of termination of medical-assistance benefits adequate where notification acknowledged that the proposed benefit reduction was total, specified benefit-termination date, and cited reason for termination

    See Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 830, 832, 835 (Minn. 1984) (remanding for de novo consideration of the claimant's reemployment insurance eligibility, despite his untimely appeal, because the agency violated the Due Process Clause by not informing him of the consequences of a proposed adverse action); Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co., 316 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1982) ("[T]he requirements of a fair hearing include notice of the claims of the opposing party * * * ." (quoting Federal Trade Comm'n v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 427, 77 S.Ct. 502, 508, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957))).

  3. In re MDE

    995 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    And we recognized the due-process right in administrative proceedings to "notice of the claims of the opposing party and an opportunity to meet them." Id. at *8 (quoting Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co. , 316 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1982) ). We noted that the MDE appeal panel had determined that MDE "sufficiently informed relator of the reasons for denial and recovery because the inconsistencies were ‘blatant and ubiquitous’ " and that both MDE and the MDE appeal panel had identified examples of "red flags" and "irregularities." Id.

  4. In re Partners in Nutrition

    No. A22-0965 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2023)

    And we recognized the due-process right in administrative proceedings to "notice of the claims of the opposing party and an opportunity to meet them." Id. at *8 (quoting Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co., 316 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1982)). We noted that the MDE appeal panel had determined that MDE "sufficiently informed relator of the reasons for denial and recovery because the inconsistencies were 'blatant and ubiquitous'" and that both MDE and the MDE appeal panel had identified examples of "red flags" and "irregularities."

  5. Brandt v. LaMettry's Collision Inc.

    No. A19-0276 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2019)

    Brandt relies on Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co. to argue that this case should be reversed and remanded. 316 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 1982). In Anderson, the supreme court reversed where an employer appealed an unemployment-benefits decision, but the employer's notice of appeal, containing the basis for the employer's appeal, was never sent to the employee.

  6. Jaskowiak v. CM Construction Co.

    717 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Declining to hold that party waived lack of notice by failing to raise issue in its appellate brief based on Minnesota appellate rule allowing court of appeals "to address any issue as the interests of justice may require"

    When a statute provides "the manner, form, and time of notice, the notice must conform to the prescribed provisions." Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co., 316 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1982) (quotation omitted). Whether the notice here conforms to the provisions of section 268.105 is a question of statutory construction, which this court reviews de novo.

  7. Tester v. Jefferson Lines

    358 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that yelling unprovoked obscenities and blocking buses during strike constitutes misconduct

    The appeal was perfected by filing it with the Commissioner. Tester was given actual notice of the appeal, and was well aware of the issues on appeal. He did not request a continuance of the appeal hearing. We conclude that he was not prejudiced by not being served with a copy of the notice of appeal. See Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Company, 316 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 1982). Finally, the Commissioner noted a serious lack of foundation regarding the videotape and disregarded it.

  8. Guerra v. State, Dept. of L E

    427 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    Thus the "correctness of the action" under review — whether the referee's decision reflected what really happened — was also compromised by the "material error" in procedure we have identified. See Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co., Minn., 316 N.W.2d 286 (1982). Hence, we hold that a new hearing of Guerra's claim for unemployment compensation benefits is required.