When a public housing authority takes evidence, hears testimony, and makes a determination to deny an individual Section 8 housing benefits, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redevelopment Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998). "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."

We will uphold a housing authority's quasi-judicial decision to terminate a participant's housing benefits unless we conclude that the authority's decision is "unconstitutional, outside the agency's jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious." Carter v. Olmsted Cnty. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 1998). "We defer to an agency's conclusions regarding conflicts in testimony . . . and the inferences to be drawn from testimony."

As a public-housing authority, CDA acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when it terminates an individual's Section 8 housing assistance after an informal hearing. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998). "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."

When a public-housing authority receives evidence, hears testimony, and makes a determination to deny an individual Section 8 benefits, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 1998). Agencies' quasi-judicial determinations should be upheld unless they are unconstitutional, outside agency jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on erroneous legal theory, not supported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious.

By taking evidence and hearing testimony, an agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998). "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."

          When a public-housing authority receives evidence, hears testimony, and makes a determination to deny an individual Section 8 benefits, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App.1998). " 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."

When taking evidence and hearing testimony, the HRA acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998). A hearing officer's administrative decision is presumed correct.

But agency action must be "based on objective criteria applied to the facts and circumstances of the record at hand." Carter v. Olmsted Cnty. Hous. &Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998) (quoting In re Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 386 N.W.2d 723, 727 (Minn. 1986)). "[Agency] discretion is not unlimited and must be explained." Id.

When a public-housing authority receives evidence, hears testimony, and makes a determination to deny an individual Section 8 benefits, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Carter v. Olmsted Cty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 1998). "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."

An agency's quasi-judicial decision will be upheld unless it is "unconstitutional, outside the agency's jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious." Carter v. Olmsted Cnty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 1998); see also Hinneberg v. Big Stone Cnty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 706 N.W.2d 220, 225 (Minn. 2005). We do not retry facts or make credibility determinations and will uphold an agency's decision if it "furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken."