# Dietz v. Dodge County

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · July 31, 1992 · 487 N.W.2d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734285

## Case

- **Full name:** Charlotte E. DIETZ, Respondent, v. DODGE COUNTY, Et Al., Petitioners, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** July 31, 1992
- **Citations:** 487 N.W.2d 237; 1992 WL 179530
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wahl
- **Judges:** Coyne, Gardebring, Wahl
- **Cited by:** 102 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734285

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 conclu…
- 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” (foot…
- 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”
- holding whether a teacher entered into a “for cause” or “at will” employment contract is a question of law that is appropriate for review on certiorari

## Opinion text

WAHL, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Gardebring.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734285. Public record. Not legal advice.