under Minn.Stat. § 117.52, review denied (Minn. June 23, 1995). Naegele argues that certiorari is inappropriate because “[i]t is questionable under existing authority whether review by cer-tiorari can correct errors of law.” Certiorari, however, is certainly appropriate to review questions of law. See, e.g., Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 239 (stating that certiorari is limited to determining, among other things, whether a decision was issued “under an erroneous theory of law”). We believe the law is now well settled. In the absence of explicit “bright line” authority for review of a local agency’s quasi-judicial decision in district court, a party’s sole remedy is to appeal to this court by writ of certiorari. See Toby’s of Alexandria, Inc. v. County of Douglas, 545 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); Neitzel, 521 N.W.2d at 76 (stating that where
holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding recognizing that either statute or ordinance enacted within power granted by enabling statute may authorize appeal to district court absent such authority party must appeal by certiorari holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted holding that writ of certiorari could not be used to appeal property tax assessment decision to circuit court because specific statute provided for appeal holding a judgment of a district court does not become final by appeal within the meaning of the statute providing for registration of such judgments in another district until the case has been disposed of by appeal