Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the district court convicted Respondent of aggravated forgery. After Respondent was discharged from probation, she filed a second petition for expungement of her criminal record. The district court granted Respondent's motion to expunge her criminal records, finding that sealing Respondent's record would yield a benefit commensurate with the disadvantages to the public. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court had the inherent authority to expunge Respondent's criminal records held in the executive branch. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that because expungement of Respondent's criminal records held in the executive branch is not necessary to the performance of a unique judicial function, the district court did not have the authority to expunge Respondent's records held in the executive branch. View "State v. M.D.T." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Department of Revenue audited Relator and assessed Relator for the amount of sales tax he collected from his customers but failed to remit to the State. The Commissioner of Revenue (Commissioner) adjusted the initial assessment and assessed tax. The tax court upheld the Commissioner's assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Plaintiff submitted to the Commissioner documents and an informal request for a refund based on his repayment of sales tax to his customers. The Commissioner responded to Relator by letter, in which he denied Plaintiff's request for a refund. Plaintiff appealed to the tax court. The tax court concluded it lacked subject matter over the appeal, holding that the Commissioner's letter was not an appealable order of the Commissioner because it was merely administrative correspondence. However, the court also denied Relator's claim for a refund. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the tax court's decision as to its jurisdiction, holding that the Commissioner's consideration of Relator's refund claim was a final decision on the claim that could be appealed; and (2) affirmed the tax court's decision on the merits of Relator's refund claim, holding that Relator's arguments either lacked merit or were barred by res judicata. View "Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Employees filed a complaint against two employers (Employers), alleging that Employers violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) based on sexual harassment perpetrated by the sole owner of both entities (Owner). Employees also alleged that Owner was individually liable under MHRA's aiding and abetting provision. The district court dismissed Employees' claims. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) the district court's determination that the harassment was not actionable was clearly erroneous, (2) Employees were entitled to judgment on their claims as a matter of law, and (3) Owner could not be individually liable for aiding and abetting Employers' MHRA violations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Owner could not be liable on an aiding and abetting theory; but (2) two separate errors of law infected the district court's determination that Employees did not prove their sexual harassment claims, and therefore, the Court was unable to ascertain exactly how the errors impacted the court's decision to dismiss Employees' claims. Remanded to the district court to reevaluate the evidence using the correct legal standard. View "Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co." on Justia Law

Respondent credit union sought to foreclose on the homestead that Appellant and her husband (Husband) owned. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellant after concluding that the mortgage Appellant signed with Respondent was void under Minn. Stat. 507.02 because it was not also signed by Husband. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the mortgage was valid because Husband had quitclaimed all of his interest in the homestead property to Appellant before the mortgage was executed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the mortgage signed by Appellant in favor of Respondent was void because (1) the mortgage at issue here did not meet any of the statutory exceptions to the signature requirement in section 507.02; and (2) Husband's quitclaim deed did not constitute an explicit waiver of his rights under the homestead statute. View "Marine Credit Union v. Detlefson-Delano" on Justia Law

Respondent was adjudicated delinquent of felony burglary and misdemeanor theft. Thereafter, Respondent obtained a district court order expunging his juvenile delinquency records held by the judicial branch and sought to expunge his juvenile delinquency records held by the executive branch. The district court denied the request, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) under Minn. Stat. 260B.198(6), the authority of the district court to expunge juvenile delinquency records in executive branch files is limited to the order adjudicating the juvenile delinquent; (2) to determine whether expungement is advisable within the meaning of section 260B.198(6), the district court must weight the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the public and the burden on the court; and (3) the district court should decide if Respondent's petition merits expungement by applying the balancing test the Court articulated here to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. View "In re J.J.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his ex-wife both claimed their two children as dependents on their state individual income tax returns. The Minnesota Department of Revenue determined that only Plaintiff's ex-wife was entitled to claim the children as dependents and that Plaintiff had underpaid his state taxes. Plaintiff appealed. The extended deadline for filing Plaintiff's notice of appeal was December 27. On December 22, Plaintiff mailed his notice of appeal to the tax court and the Department of Revenue. The Department received the notice on December 27, but the notice sent to the court was marked by the court as filed on December 28. The The tax court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff had not timely filed his notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the mailbox rule does not extend to statutorily created rights of appeal; and (2) Plaintiff failed to present direct evidence in support of his assertion that his notice of appeal arrived on December 27. View "Harbaugh v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

On December 21, 2012, Petitioner, the Independence Party candidate in the November 6, 2012 election for the U.S. House of Representatives, filed this petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. 204B.44 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and asserting three claims: (1) Minn. Stat. 202A. 16(2), which identifies those who can participate in and vote at a precinct caucus, violates his First Amendment rights; (2) the Secretary of State improperly withheld from him the e-mail addresses of registered voters in his district in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act; and (3) the district court's refusal to accept his election contest for filing infringed on his constitutional right of access to the courts. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) laches bars Petitioner's first two claims, as Petitioner unreasonably delayed bringing these claims and granting relief on the claims would do substantial prejudice to the orderly administration of elections; and (2) Petitioner's third claim falls outside the scope of section 204B.44. View "Carlson v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief requesting a new trial or an evidentiary hearing based on recanted testimony from a witness and newly discovered evidence. The postconviction court denied Appellant's motion on the grounds that it was untimely because it was filed after the two-year statutory limit, and no exception to the limitations applied. The court further concluded that the jury would not have reached a different outcome without the witness's testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's petition was untimely, and Appellant failed to demonstrate he was entitled to relief under the newly discovered evidence exception to the time bar. View "Clifton v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder while committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Appellant challenged his conviction on several grounds but did not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court summarily denied Appellant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's postconviction claim was barred by application of State v. Knaffla, which provides that claims that were not raised on direct appeal or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred. View "Sontoya v. State" on Justia Law

In 2000, Appellant was indeterminately committed as a sexual dangerous person as a result of a series of sex offenses involving teenage girls. Appellant later petitioned for provisional discharge from civil commitment. After weighing the evidence presented by Appellant and the Commissioner of Human Services at a first-phase hearing, the Supreme Court Judicial Appeal Panel dismissed Appellant's petition under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Appeal Panel committed reversible error in applying Rule 41.02(b) by failing to view the evidence produced at the first-phase hearing in a light most favorable to Appellant and by weighing the evidence produced during the first phase of the hearing. Remanded. View "Coker v. Jesson" on Justia Law