Dietz v. Dodge County’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Charchenko v. City of Stillwater (1995), Bechtold v. City of Rosemount (1997)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 74 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State Ex Rel. Ging v. Board of Education · State ex rel. Hart v. Common Council · Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 · Sellin v. City of Duluth · State Ex Rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[rjeview by [writ of] certiorari is limited to an inspection of the record of the inferior tribunal in which the court is necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board, the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“For several reasons we conclude that writ of certiorari was the only mechanism by which Dietz could obtain judicial review of the county's decision to terminate her employment. First, Dietz was not entitled by statute to appeal the decision by traditional means. The county, not having statewide jurisdiction, is not subject to the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, Minn.Stat. § 14.02, subd. 2 (1990), and no statute specifically provides appeal to the courts from an administrative decision to terminate a county nursing home administrator. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. ch. 144A (1990); Minn.Stat. § 376.55, et seq. (1990). Second, because of the nature of the board's action upon which this dispute centers, the standard of review on certiorari is more appropriate to a review of the exercise of the board's discretion than would be the standard of review of an independent proceeding. Her request for reinstatement and damages for mental anguish highlights the fact that her claim is not an ordinary action for failure to perform on a contract for goods or services. The cause of action alleged in Dietz's complaint would require the rights and liabilities of the parties to be fixed not by the terms of the contract, but by the propriety of the county's exercise of discretion in terminating her. Compare Oikari v. Independent School Dist. No. 40, 170 Minn. 301 , 212 N.W. 598 (1927); Backie v. Cromwell Consolidated School Distr. No. 13, 186 Minn. 38 , 242 N.W. 389 (1932) (actions for salary in ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.