In re the Appeal from the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux Watershed District, 2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 75

Bois de Sioux Watershed District sought redetermination of benefits for Judicial Ditch No. 14 under Minn.Stat. § 103E.351.
Petition to circulate among landowners did not satisfy the petition prong of § 103E.351, subd. 1.
Minutes show a motion to appoint viewers but no record of a board motion, second, or vote on the statutory basis for redetermination.
The district court vacated the redetermination order after concluding the district lacked jurisdiction.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding the district lacked jurisdiction because the board did not make the requisite determination.
The opinion notes the possibility of re-commencing redetermination proceedings if jurisdiction can be established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under §103E.351, subd. 1	Bois de Sioux asserts a board determination existed.	Landowners argue no board action = no jurisdiction.	Affirmed; district court did not err in vacating.
Remand vs. vacate	Remand to district for further proceedings is appropriate.	Remand unnecessary; jurisdiction must be established before proceeding.	Not reached; affirmance confirms vacatur and notes reinitiation is possible after jurisdiction proves.

State ex rel. Spurck v. Civil Serv. Bd., 226 Minn. 253 (1948) (void when decision lacks statutory power or exceeds it)
Johnson v. Steele Cnty., 240 Minn. 154 (1953) (jurisdictional prerequisites and strict compliance)
Hagen v. Cnty. of Martin, 253 Minn. 367 (1958) (validity depends on strict statutory compliance)
Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 (1943) (definition of jurisdiction and its limits)
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 577 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. 1998) (preclusive effect of void judgments due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Moore v. Moore, 734 N.W.2d 285 (Minn.App. 2007) (interpretation of jurisdiction-related concepts)