Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

L.H. Bolduc Company, Inc. (Bolduc) was the subcontractor of Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. (ECI). Bolduc damaged a sewer pipe while working on a construction project. ECI repaired the damage and sought reimbursement from Bolduc's insurer, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (Travelers) under an endorsement to Bolduc's policy naming ECI as an additional insured for liability caused by acts or omissions of Bolduc. Travelers denied coverage. ECI subsequently sued Bolduc and Travelers (collectively, Appellants) for negligence and breach of contract. A jury found that Bolduc was not negligent, and the district court granted summary judgment for Appellants on ECI's breach of contract claims, concluding that Appellants had no obligation to reimburse ECI for damages not caused by Bolduc. The court of appeals reversed, determining (1) ECI was entitled to coverage as an additional insured without regard to Bolduc's fault; and (2) Bolduc was required to indemnity ECI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) ECI did not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the pipe damage; and (2) Bolduc could not be required to indemnify ECI without violating Minn. Stat. 337.02, which prohibits indemnification for the fault of others in construction contracts. View "Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Todd County assessed taxes on property owned by John and Carrie Beck based on its conclusion that the property had an estimated market value of $397,400 as of January 2, 2009. John petitioned the tax court for relief. After a trial, the tax court found the fair market value of the property on that date was $395,000. John appealed, arguing that the tax court erred by (1) adopting the appraisal of Todd County's expert despite several challenges John raised to the assumptions and values underlying the appraisal, (2) rejecting the testimonies of John and Carrie challenging the County's assessment of the property, and (3) not determining separate land and improvement values for the property. The Supreme Court reversed because the tax court completely failed to address why it rejected the extensive evidence offered by John in support of his petition for tax relief. Remanded for the tax court to explain adequately the reasoning underlying its valuation determination. View "Beck v. County of Todd" on Justia Law

From 1999-2006, Relator filed his Minnesota individual income tax return as a nonresident. After the Commissioner of Revenue conducted two audits of Relator's individual income tax returns spanning the 2002-2006 tax years, the Commissioner determined that Relator was a resident of Minnesota during the tax years. Relator appealed, arguing that he became a resident of Nevada in 1998, and therefore, the Commissioner erred in requiring him to pay taxes as a Minnesota resident during the relevant tax years. The tax court affirmed, concluding that Relator was a Minnesota domiciliary during the tax years and, therefore, was a resident of Minnesota for income tax purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax court did not err in its application of the law, and the record supported the tax court's determination. View "Larson v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

This case arose out of three biting incidents involving a dog owned by Respondent. After the first bite, the City of Lino Lakes designated Respondent's dog as "potentially dangerous," and after the second bite, the City designated the dog as "dangerous." After the third bite, the City ordered the dog to be destroyed. The court of appeals reversed the City's decisions, holding that Appellant's inability to challenge the "potentially dangerous" designation violated his right to procedural due process. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, upheld the City's designation of the dog as "dangerous," and affirmed the City's order to destroy the dog, holding (1) Respondent was not constitutionally entitled to a hearing to challenge the "potentially dangerous" designation; and (2) substantial evidence supported the City's decisions. View "Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes" on Justia Law

Relators represented a putative class including all residential property owners in three Minneapolis neighborhoods. Relators challenged the assessed values that the City placed on Relators' properties and alleged that because their properties were overvalued, Relators were required to overpay property taxes in 2009 through 2011. The tax court dismissed Relators' complaint, holding (1) because Relators alleged that the City's assessment practices were illegal, Minn. Stat. 278 provided the Realtors' exclusive remedy, (2) Relators' 2008 and 2009 claims were untimely under chapter 278, and (3) Relators' 2010 claims failed because chapter 278 did not allow multiple taxpayers to file a single action concerning multiple properties. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Relators' claims based on the 2008 and 2009 tax years were untimely pursuant to chapter 278; but (2) because the plain language of chapter 278 allows multiple taxpayers to file one tax action concerning multiple properties, the tax court erred in dismissing Relators' claims based on the 2010 tax year to the extent those claims alleged a violation of Minn. Stat. 273.11. View "Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Policyholder obtained a title insurance policy from Insurer for a parcel of property it owned. Because an ambiguity in the legal description of the property prevented Policyholder from reselling the property, Policyholder filed an action seeking a declaration of Insurer's obligations under the policy and alleging breach of contract against Insurer. The district court held in favor of Policyholder, concluding that Insurer was liable because the title to the property was unmarketable. The court, however, limited Policyholder's recovery to the face value of the policy. The court of appeals affirmed the finding of liability but held that Policyholder was entitled to recovery in excess of the policy limit. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to Policyholder on the question of Insurer's liability for its failure to defend and indemnify Policyholder; but (2) reversed the court of appeals' award of damages to Policyholder in excess of the policy limit and remanded for reinstatement of the district court's award of damages. View "Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Tile, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought an order requiring that Respondents, the St. Louis County Auditor and the Minnesota Secretary of State, place Erik Simonson's name on the ballot for the 2012 general election as the candidate for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party for the office of State Representative for House District 7B. Petitioners contended that the County Auditor erred by refusing to accept the affidavit of withdrawal submitted by DFL-nominated candidate Kerry Gauthier and affidavit of candidacy submitted by newly nominated DFL candidate Simonson for the general election in District 7B. The Supreme Court concluded that Minnesota law required Simonson's name to be placed on the November 2012 ballot by order filed in September 2012, with this opinion to follow, holding (1) a major political party has statutory authority to fill a vacancy in nomination for a partisan office that was caused by the withdrawal of its originally nominated candidate after the primary, as long as the originally nominated candidate complied with the procedures for filing an affidavit of withdrawal; and (2) the County Auditor erred when he rejected the affidavit of withdrawal that Gauthier attempted to file and the certificate of nomination listing Simonson as the DFL-nominated candidate that the DFL attempted to file. View "Martin v. Dicklich" on Justia Law

In Martin v. Dicklich, the Supreme Court ordered the Saint Louis County Auditor to replace the name of Kerry Gauthier with the name of Erik Simonson as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (FL) endorsed candidate for state representative, House District 7B, on the November 2012 general election ballot. Jay Fosle, who had previously declared his write-in candidacy for state representative, District 7B, was not served with a copy of the Martin petition. Fosle subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to order that his name also be placed on the November 2012 ballot either as the "Independent candidate" or without party affiliation. The Supreme Court denied Fosle's petition by order filed in October 2012, with this opinion to follow, holding that there was no statutory or other basis on which to grant the relief Fosle sought here. View "Fosle v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

Relator challenged several personal liability assessments that the Commissioner of Revenue made against him based on unpaid petroleum and sales taxes owed by Twin Cities Avanti Stores, LLC (Avanti). On appeal, Relator asserted that the tax court erred by granting summary judgment to the Commissioner because (1) there were disputed, material questions of fact regarding his personal liability for the unpaid petroleum and sales taxes, and (2) the court abused its discretion in not allowing additional discovery to explore an estoppel defense. The Supreme Court reversed the tax court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and remanded for a trial, holding that there was a material dispute of fact whether Relator had the requisite control over the company's finances to be held personally liable for Avanti's tax liability. View "Stevens v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law

Relator challenged several personal liability assessments that the Commissioner of Revenue made against him based on unpaid petroleum and sales taxes owed by Twin Cities Avanti Stores, LLC. In his appeal, Relator did not dispute that he could be held personally liable but asserted that the tax court erred in granting summary judgment to the Commissioner because the court did not allow him additional discovery to explore an estoppel defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Relator could not establish the elements of equitable estoppel, the tax court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for additional discovery to pursue such a claim. View "Nelson v. Comm'r of Revenue" on Justia Law