stating “[t]his court has long held that in the absence of an adequate method of review or legal remedy, judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of administrative bodies, if available, must be invoked by writ of certiorari” to the court of appeals, and that this conclusion “has never inhered in school board cases alone”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[t]his court has long held that in the absence of an adequate method of review or legal remedy, judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of administrative bodies, if available, must be invoked by writ of certiorari” to the court of appeals, and that this conclusion “has never inhered in school board cases alone”
- stating that the narrow scope of “certiora-ri is compatible with the maintenance of fundamental separation of power principles, and thus is a particularly appropriate method of limiting and coordinating judicial review of the quasi-judicial decisions of executive bodies” (footnote omitted)
- stating that a court conducting certiorari review determines whether a decision “was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law,- or without any evidence to support it”
- holding that “a petition for a writ of certiorari provides the exclusive means by which an employee can secure judicial review of the county’s employment termination decision”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WAHL, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Gardebring.