Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Independent School

16 Citing cases

  1. Dokmo v. Independent School Dist. No. 11

    459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that a declaratory judgment action is not a proper procedure for challenging school board decisions

    213 Minn. at 589, 7 N.W.2d at 564. See also Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Independent School Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn. 1986); State ex rel. Haak v. Board of Educ. of Indep. School Dist. No. 625, St. Paul, 367 N.W.2d 461, 466-68 (Minn. 1985), reh'g denied (Minn., Jul. 24, 1985); State ex rel. Dreyer v. Board of Educ. of Indep. School Dist. No. 542, Battle Lake, 344 N.W.2d 411, 414 (Minn. 1984); Herfindahl v. Independent School Dist. No. 126, Clara City, 325 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Minn.

  2. Evans v. Independent School Dist. No. 281

    396 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    Respondent asserts this writ issued on July 17, 1986, more than 60 days after Thorsell's notice of placement on ULA on April 3, 1986. See Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986) ( Roseville Education II). Thorsell claims the proceeding he seeks to review is not his April 3 placement on ULA, but the May 19 school board demotion and reassignment of coordinator Stockhaus. He argues his writ is therefore timely as issuing within 60 days of May 19.

  3. City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge

    800 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011)   Cited 31 times
    Stating that "we read the statute as a whole" and "give effect to all statutory provisions"

    Instead, we conclude that his argument that the City missed the deadline for judicial review is a challenge to the appellate jurisdiction of the district court. See Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986) (holding that timely issuance of a writ of certiorari is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to judicial review); cf. Minn. Stat. § 484.03 (2010) (authorizing the district courts to issue writs of certiorari as "necessary to the complete exercise of the jurisdiction vested in them by law"). Jurisdiction is a question that may be raised at any time by a party, or sua sponte by a court.

  4. Johnson v. Independent School Dist. 281

    494 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    Stating in dictum that if probationary principal had been subjected to mid-year termination for cause, as she argued, she was required to seek writ of certiorari at time of termination rather than when nonrenewed at end of year

    " A timely writ is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review." Roseville Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986). Ms. Johnson argues that the writ is timely for review of these actions because the school board ratified them when it decided on May 20, 1991 not to renew her contract, but nothing in the record suggests that the school board reviewed or even considered ratification of these earlier actions by the superintendent of the school district.

  5. Matter of Placement of Johnson

    484 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. 1992)

    By operation of Minn.Stat. § 606.01, a timely writ of certiorari would have necessarily been issued within 60 days after Johnson "received due notice of the proceeding sought to be reviewed," namely, within 60 days of the May 2, 1991 notification of the action of the school district. See Roseville Education Ass'n. v. I.S.D. # 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986) and Dokmo v. I.S.D. # 11, 459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990). The writ of certiorari is discharged.

  6. Harms v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 300

    450 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. 1990)   Cited 28 times
    Indicating that an appellate court may decide an issue not determined by the district court when the question is "decisive of the entire controversy," and when the facts are undisputed

    ), with id. subd. 6b(e) ("Reinstatement shall be in the inverse order of placement on leave of absence."). In addition, we have often recognized the importance of seniority generally under Minn.Stat. §§ 125.12 125.17. E.g., Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Independent School Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn. 1986); Walter v. Independent School Dist. No. 457, 323 N.W.2d 37, 43 (Minn. 1982); McManus, 321 N.W.2d at 893. We previously recognized that seniority is the primary consideration when reinstating teachers.

  7. Pirrotta v. Ind. School Dist. No. 347

    396 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 1986)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that even though the school board's interests were similar to those of the appellant teacher where the school board acted on its own behalf without accountability to the teacher, there was no privity and collateral estoppel does not apply

    We recognize, however, that the seniority freeze date issue has arisen in the unrequested leave hearing and may be resolved there. Only the "second stage" of the unrequested leave hearing need be reconvened. See Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986).III.

  8. Blank v. Independent School Dist. No. 16

    393 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that teacher's failure to grieve incorrect information on seniority list precluded certiorari for challenge to unrequested leave of absence because list was binding as to that issue

    1978). See also Roseville Education Association v. Independent School District No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1986) (effect of failure to request a hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 125.12 following notice of proposed placement on unrequested leave of absence). Treating the seniority list as final and binding on the parties by reason of the failure to grieve, in timely fashion, the omission of licensure in a subject matter category may seem a harsh penalty indeed for the failure to perform what some would characterize as a technical requirement.

  9. Doran v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 720, Shakopee

    831 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining that a case is moot "if the party seeking relief has already obtained it"

    The supreme court has explained, “[i]f no hearing is requested, the person affected by the proposed action is deemed to have acquiesced therein.” Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 851 (Minn.1986) (“The purpose of a subsequent hearing [in unrequested leave determinations], if requested, is to test the basis for that proposed determination.”). One difficulty with the school district's reliance on the Roseville Education case is that the district is asking us to render Doran's acquiescence to the cooperative's decision to put him on leave a basis to reject his present challenge to the district's decision not to hire him.

  10. Juranitch v. Independent School District

    No. A09-272 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2009)

    Timely application for the writ is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review." Roseville Educ. Ass'n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 391 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Minn. 1986); see also King v. Univ. of Minn., 387 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986) (discharging untimely writ), review denied (Minn. Aug. 13, 1986).