Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a school district is subject to the campaign-finance reporting requirements found in Minn. Stat. 211A and whether the complaint in this matter stated a claim under Minn. Stat. 211B.06, which prohibits the dissemination of false campaign material. The Supreme Court held (1) a school district is a "corporation" under section 211A.01 and therefore can qualify as a "committee" subject to chapter 211A's campaign-finance reporting requirements if it acts "to promote or defeat a ballot question"; (2) because Appellants' complaint, filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, stated a prima facie claim that the school district here was a "committee" under section 211A.01 that promoted a ballot question, the ALJ assigned to the matter erred in dismissing the complaint without an evidentiary hearing; and (3) the complaint failed to state a prima facie violation of section 211B.06 with respect to two allegedly false statements. Remanded. View "Abrahamson v. St. Louis County Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

A home remodeling contractor (Contractor) received a demand for arbitration regarding allegedly defective work it performed on a remodeling project. Contractor's insurer (Insurer) accepted defense of the claim under a reservation of rights. The arbitrator issued an arbitration award in favor of the homeowners. When Insurer refused to pay the award, Contractor paid the homeowners and sued Insurer for indemnification under the policy. The district court granted Contractor's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a vague arbitration award made it impossible to determine whether the insurance policy covered any of the homeonwers' successful claims and was directly attributable to the inaction of the attorney appointed by Insurer to represent Contractor. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a portion of the homeowners' claim may be covered under the policy; (2) Insurer was not vicariously liable of the absence of an explanation of the arbitration award; and (3) Insurer was directly liable to Contractor for the failure of the attorney to request an explanation of the arbitration award to determine what portion of the award, if any, was for the covered claim. Remanded. View "Remodeling Dimensions, Inc., v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed with the Secretary of State's (Secretary) office an affidavit of candidacy as the Republican candidate for Minnesota State Senate, District 61. Petitioner's affidavit did not include a telephone number as required by statute, and therefore, Petitioner's affidavit was rejected. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an order requiring the Secretary to place his name on the 2012 general election ballot as a candidate for state senate. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the Secretary properly rejected Petitioner's affidavit of candidacy because Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for filing to run for elective office. View "In re Petition of Pfliger" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and drive-by shooting. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. In this case, Defendant appealed the summary denial of his second petition for postconviction relief, which alleged a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and his third petition for postconviction relief, which alleged a claim of newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of the second postconviction petition because the record conclusively showed appellate counsel was not ineffective; but (2) reversed the court's summary denial of the third postconviction petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record failed to conclusively show that Appellant was not entitled to relief based on his claim of newly discovered evidence. View "Bobo v. State" on Justia Law

In June 2012, Petitioner filed an affidavit of candidacy and nominating petition with the Secretary of State's (Secretary) office, seeking to run as an independent candidate for Minnesota state representative. The Secretary rejected Petitioner's nominating petition because it did not bear her residence as required by statute and because Petitioner's statement of political party or political principle exceeded the three-word limit required by statute. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court to require the Secretary to list her on the 2012 general election ballot as a candidate for state representative. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the Secretary properly denied Petitioner's nominating petition, as (1) candidates for public office must strictly comply with the statutory requirements for filing for office, and (2) the statement of political party or political principle on the pages of Petitioner's nominating petition exceeded the three-word limit required by statute. View "Anderson v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of second-degree murder. The district court entered convictions on the three counts of first-degree murder and imposed three consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a second petition for postconviction relief, claiming he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant also brought a motion for additional fingerprint and forensic DNA testing. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's petition was time-barred as a matter of law, and (2) the motion was not supported by adequate proof. View "Riley v. State" on Justia Law

Respondent brought a claim against Appellants, the University of Minnesota and Orlando Smith, the University's men's basketball coach, alleging that Smith negligently misrepresented that he had authority to hire Respondent, and that Respondent suffered damage. The jury found in favor of Respondent and awarded damages. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Court, as a matter of public policy, should extend the protection against negligent misrepresentation to prospective employees of the University, which is a constitutional corporation and agency of the state. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a prospective government employment relationship is negotiated at arm's length between sophisticated business persons who do not have a professional, fiduciary, or other special legal relationship, the prospective employee is not entitled to protection against negligent misrepresentations by the representative for the prospective government employer. View "Williams v. Smith" on Justia Law

A jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder while committing a kidnapping, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of his girlfriend. The trial court convicted Appellant of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding that, given the evidence of Appellant's planning activity, his motive, and the nature of the victim's killing, and given the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, the evidence of premeditation was sufficient to support Appellant's first-degree premeditated murder conviction. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of falsely reporting an act of police misconduct under Minn. Stat. 609.505, subd. 2 (the statute) based on the fact that Defendant informed a police officer that another officer forged her signature, knowing that the information conveyed was false. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the statute was unconstitutional because it criminalizes false speech critical of the police but not false speech that favors the police. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in finding the statute unconstitutional because it criminalizes only defamatory speech not protected by the First Amendment and because it was within two of the exceptions to the constitutional prohibition against content discrimination in an unprotected category of speech; but (2) because Defendant's conviction under the statute preceded the Court's narrow construction of the statute, due process considerations entitled her to a new trial. Remanded. View "State v. Crawley" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether an order for protection (OFP) may be issued under the Domestic Abuse Act on behalf of a minor child in the absence of a finding by the district court that the child was a victim of domestic abuse. The district court issued an OFP to Respondent on behalf of his minor son against Appellant, the child's grandfather and Respondent's father-in-law, when the alleged victim of the domestic abuse did not seek or want protection against Appellant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it issued the OFP without finding that the child was a victim of Appellant's domestic abuse, as, when viewed in its entirety, the Act authorizes a district court to grant an OFP only to a victim of domestic abuse. View "Schmidt v. Coons" on Justia Law