Inspection of Minnesota Auto Specialties, Inc., Matter of
| Citation | 346 N.W.2d 657 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-83-119,C3-83-119 |
| Parties | In the Matter of INSPECTION OF MINNESOTA AUTO SPECIALTIES, INC. and its facility located at 2538 Hennepin Avenue South Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota 55405, and Mr. Gary Kohn, its President. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Bruce C. Douglas, Edina, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., H. Theodore Grindal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
Minnesota Auto Specialties, Inc., appeals from an order of the Hennepin County District Court authorizing an inspection of the appellant's premises pursuant to the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act. The case is moot; we dismiss.
After an agent of the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Department of Labor had been denied entry to the Auto Specialties' premises, the district court issued its order, pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 182.659, subd. 6 (1982), authorizing the MOSHA inspection. The district court based its determination that there was probable cause for inspection on the division's established administrative plan for scheduling inspections. The plan, designed to identify and select employers for inspection on a "first-worst" basis, was derived from neutral sources such as information compiled by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Association of Minnesota and was patterned after the federal OSHA plan.
The inspection resulted in the issuance of a citation for two non-serious regulatory violations relating to the maintenance of records of occupational injuries and illnesses. 8 MCAR Secs. 1.7292(A) and 1.7294 (1982). Auto Specialties filed a notice of contest of the citation, but the contest was dismissed on February 15, 1983, for noncompliance with the Rules of Procedure for Practice before the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Following denial of its petition for reinstatement, Auto Specialties took no further action with respect to the citation.
Auto Specialties challenges the district court's finding of probable cause on the ground that it is based on an "administrative plan" which is invalid because it was not promulgated according to the rulemaking procedures of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. Minn.Stat. Secs. 14.01-14.70 (1982). 1 Auto Specialties requests reversal of the order authorizing inspection and suppression of any evidence obtained through the inspection in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Guardianship of Tschumy
...We have dismissed appeals for lack of jurisdiction where the issues in the case were moot. E.g., In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn.1984). We do so because courts are designed to decide actual controversies. State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn......
-
Mattson v. Mattson
...28, 2002). When an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits unnecessary, an appeal is moot. In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984). Here, a decision on the merits is unnecessary because Berberich's motion concerning health care coverage w......
-
R. J. Marco Construction, Inc. v. SAMS Enterprises, No. A04-1433 (MN 6/7/2005)
...occurs that makes an award of effective relief impossible or a decision on the merits unnecessary. In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984). Because SAMS's claims against Amcon and Oliver have reached a final adjudication on the merits, SAMS cannot ......
-
Minnegasco, Application of
...merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot. In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn.1984); St. Paul City Ry. v. City of St. Paul, 259 Minn. 129, 131-32, 106 N.W.2d 452, 454 (1960) (concluding that......