Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted in 1990 of first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief requesting an evidentiary hearing to consider evidence he asserted was new and exculpatory. Specifically, Defendant sought a hearing to consider (1) newly discovered eyewitness testimony, which he claimed buttressed his alternative-perpetrator theory, and (2) whether he was entitled to have DNA testing of a sample from a smear found at the crime scene. The postconviction court denied Defendant's petition and motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Defendant did not meet the standard for receiving an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to meet the threshold required for relief, and thus, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "Fort v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Employee suffered injuries in a work-related accident and was rendered a paraplegic. Employer and its insurer accepted liability for Employee's injuries and paid various workers' compensation benefits. In 2010, Employee filed a medical request seeing payment for the installation of a ceiling-mounted motorized lift system. A compensation judge (1) determined that the cost of making the structural changes was compensable under Minn. Stat. 176.135 because those changes were necessary to provide Employee with reasonable and necessary medical treatment, and (2) ordered Employer and its insurer to pay for the modifications in their entirety. The workers' compensation court of appeals reversed, concluding that the changes to Employee's home necessary to permit installation of the lift system constituted "alteration or remodeling" of Employee's home and that Employer's liability was therefore limited by Minn. Stat. 176.137. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the cost of the structural modifications to Employee's residence that were necessary to permit the ceiling-mounted track system to be installed were "alteration or remodeling" costs subject to section 176.137 and were not costs of medical treatment. View "Washek v. New Dimensions Home Health & State Fund Mut. Ins. Co. " on Justia Law

At the time of his divorce from Wife, Husband was a participant in a pension fund (Fund). To enforce the interest awarded to her under the decree, Wife needed to serve a domestic relations order (DRO) on the Fund and its administrators (collectively, the Plan) for qualification. Before Wife served any DRO on the Plan, Husband remarried. At the time of Husband's retirement, he made a survivor annuity payable to his current spouse upon his death. Wife eventually served a DRO on the Plan in 2005, but the Plan refused to qualify the DRO. After Husband died, Wife brought a motion to enforce the 2005 DRO. The district court ruled in favor of Wife, concluding (1) surviving spouse benefits do not vest in a plan participant's current spouse at the time of the plan participant's retirement; and (2) therefore, the 2005 DRO served on the Plan was a qualified domestic relations order. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under ERISA, surviving spouse benefits vest in a plan participant's current spouse at the time of the plan participant's retirement; and (2) accordingly, the 2005 DRO in this case could not be qualified. View "Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp." on Justia Law

Two children's foster parents filed a petition to adopt the children, as did the children's grandparents. The district court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to be adopted by the foster parents and accordingly granted the foster parents' petition. The court then denied the adoption petition of the grandparents. The court of appeals affirmed. The grandparents appealed, contending that the district court erred in not according them preference and ignoring the plain language of Minn. Stat. 259.57(2)(c) by considering the grandparents' and the foster parents' petitions side-by-side. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied section 259.57(2)(c) and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that adoption by the foster parents was in the children's best interests. View "In re Petition to Adopt P.U.K." on Justia Law

On their 2007 Minnesota individual income tax return, John and Deborah Billion claimed a $55,904 deduction for carryover losses incurred in 2005 by a Minnesota subchapter S corporation in which John Billion was a shareholder. The Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue disallowed the Billions' deduction, resulting in an assessment of $3,736 in additional Minnesota income taxes for the 2007 tax year. The tax court upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Billions were entitled to a carryover net operating loss deduction of $7,834 on their 2007 individual income tax return; but (2) the tax court did not err in its judgment in all other respects. Remanded for recalculation of the Billions' Minnesota income tax liability for the 2007 tax year. View "Billion v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Second Chance Investments, LLC (SCI) purchased a fire insurance policy from Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) that covered a building with the limit of insurance set at $2,095,500. The building subsequently suffered extensive fire damage. SCI filed a proof of loss claiming the building was a total loss. Auto-Owners rejected the proof of loss, contending that it did not state the actual cash value of the loss as required by the policy or provide a written estimate of repair to support the claim. After a continued dispute over whether the property was a total loss, Auto-Owners ultimately filed a complaint in district court seeking an order compelling SCI to submit the issue of whether the building was a total loss to a binding determination by an appraisal panel. The district court denied Auto-Owners' motion to compel appraisal and dismissed its complaint. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that a court, rather than an appraisal panel, is the appropriate forum to determine whether the property suffered a total loss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a party to a fire insurance policy does not have the statutory right to have an appraisal panel decide whether a claim involves a total loss. View "Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging seven separate grounds he contended warranted a new trial. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant's petition, explaining that Appellant's claims were either meritless on their face or barred by State v. Knaffla. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court properly determined that the petition and files and records of the trial conclusively showed Appellant was not entitled to postconviction relief because his claims were either meritless on their face or barred by the Knaffla rule. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. After Defendant's convictions were affirmed on appeal, Defendant filed four separate petitions for postconviction relief, each of which was denied by the postconviction court. Defendant filed a fifth petition for postconviction relief, arguing that (1) he was entitled to relief based on newly discovered evidence of false testimony, and (2) the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional. The postconviction court denied Defendant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on the postconviction court's findings, the court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Defendant's claim of newly discovered evidence; and (2) Defendant's claim that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional was time-barred. View "McDonough v. State" on Justia Law

Central Lakes College (CLC) formally petitioned the City of Brainerd to reconstruct a road. The City validated the petition and resolved to pay for a portion of the project with special assessments. Appellants, who owned property adjacent to the road, challenged the legality of the petition, arguing that because CLC was an instrumentality of the State, and the State cannot be bound by special assessments of its property, CLC was not an "owner" of property permitted to petition for an improvement under Minn. Stat. 429.031(1)(f). The district court granted summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) CLC was an "owner" of property under the plain language of the statute; and (2) therefore, CLC's petition was valid. View "City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs. P'ship" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree felony murder while committing a drive-by shooting and second-degree intentional murder. The district court convicted Defendant of first-degree felony murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of release. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder while committing a drive-by shooting, holding (1) the State did not present sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction because Defendant's conduct in this case did not meet the definition of a drive-by shooting; and (2) the district court did not err when it admitted testimony at trial that a witness was threatened and attacked for being a "snitch." Remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of conviction on the second-degree intentional murder count. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law