2002_1202_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

`presumably the product or result of an investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment based upon evidentiary facts of some sort commanding the exercise of their discretionary power. It is the perforniance of an administrative act which depends upon and requires the e�stence or non-existence of certain facts which must be ascertained and the investigation and determination of such facts cause the administrative act to be termed quasi judicial. \eitzel �'. Countv of Redwood, 521 N.W.2d 73, 75 (Nlinn. App. 1994), quoting Oakman v. City ot� Eveleth, 163 NTinn. 100, 108-09, 203 N.W. 514, 517 (1925). Although it is somewhat difficult to determine from the record what information the State Auditor's office considered in reaching its decision that Plaintiffs were not entitled to receive service credit through the Hastings Relief Association, there is no evidence that the State Defendants did any meaningful, fact-based investigation. The decision making process utilized by the State Auditor's Office used is similar to the situation presented in Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council, where the plaintiff challenged the Metropolitan Council's decision to approve a transportation improvement program which included a bridge replacement project. Although the Metropolitan Council's research and decision-making process did involve consideration of the costs, needs and benefits of the project as �vell as public comments, the Minnesota Supreme Court found the decision was not quasi- judicial because it did not involve taking evidence in accordance with evidentiaty rules, giving testimony under oath or involving formally identified parties who offered evidence in support of a legal claim. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. MetropolitanCouncil, 587 N.W.Zd at 8�2-S43. [il]