In re Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship

5 Citing cases

  1. In re A Contested Case Hearing Request

    No. A21-0986 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 2, 2022)

    A relator challenging an agency decision bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision violates one or more of the provisions of section 14.69. EnergyForward, 958 N.W.2d at 344; In re Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship, 964 N.W.2d 173, 189 (Minn.App. 2021) (Enbridge), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2021).

  2. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs

    636 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    In a decision dated June 14, 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the revised State EIS. In the Matter of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, 964 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021).

  3. In re Primrose Sch. of Arden Hills

    No. A23-0496 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2024)

    We may not substitute our own conclusions for those of the agency when it concerns a matter of factual determination. See In re Application of Minn. Power, 838 N.W.2d 747, 759 (Minn. 2013) (deferring to the commission's decision as to whether a statutory standard was met); In re Application of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship, 964 N.W.2d 173, 198 (Minn.App. 2021) (determining that whether the evidence satisfies the statutory requirements is a factual inquiry), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2021); Minneapolis Police Dep't v. Kelly, 776 N.W.2d 760, 766 (Minn.App. 2010) (determining that whether the ordinance prohibited the conduct is a fact issue for the specific skills of the commission), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2010).

  4. In re Del Zotto Prods.

    No. A22-1161 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2023)

    Turning to a different standard of review from that governing rule interpretation, we apply a substantial-evidence standard to an administrative agency's factual findings, as well as to its quasi-judicial application of the law to those facts. See In re Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship, 964 N.W.2d 173, 188-89 (Minn.App. 2021) (explaining that if an agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court must affirm the agency's decision), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2021). In a substantial-evidence analysis, this court must affirm the agency's decision if there is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion to show that the agency engaged in reasoned decision-making.

  5. In re City of Cohasset's Decision

    985 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that a term in an administrative rule was unambiguous when considered in context

    The treaty rights of tribes to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded lands are usufructuary rights. See , e.g. , In re Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship , 964 N.W.2d 173, 206 n. 47 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2021). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which is charged with protecting natural resources including forests, offered technical corrections to the EAW's descriptions of certain department policies, but did not dispute the conclusions in the EAW or assert that an EIS was necessary on this issue.