Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a juvenile, was petitioned for a felony and then adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor arising out of the same set of circumstances. The court ordered that Appellant provide a biological speciman to determine her DNA profile for the limited purpose of criminal identification after concluding that Minn. Stat. 609.117, subd. 1(2), which requires a juvenile adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor to submit a DNA sample, did not violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures and was not a denial of equal protection. The Supreme Court affirmed after applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test, holding (1) the State's legitimate governmental interests in collecting Appellant's DNA outweighed Appellant's reduced expectation of privacy following her misdemeanor adjudication arising out of the same set of circumstances as her felony petition; (2) consequently, as applied to Appellant, section 609.177, sub. 1(2) did not violate the prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures in the state and federal constitutions; and (3) Appellant's equal protection claim failed because Appellant was not similarly situated to misdemeanants without a felony petition, who were not required to provide a DNA sample under the statute. View "In re M.L.M." on Justia Law

Appellant Darryl Colbert was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Colbert's conviction on direct appeal. Colbert subsequently filed five petitions for postconviction relief, and the postconviction court denied each petition. In this case, Colbert appealed the postconviction court's denial of his fifth petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Colbert's petition was time-barred under Minn. Stat. 590.01, subd. 4, which states that a person seeking relief has two years from the disposition of the person's direct appeal to file a petition for postconviction relief, because it was filed more than two years after it arose. View "Colbert v. State" on Justia Law

Relators, two businesses, sought certiorari review of the Minnesota Tax Court's determination of the fair market value on the 2007, 2008, and 2009 assessment dates for an office building located in Ramsey County. At trial, the tax court heard expert testimony from Relators' appraiser and Ramsey County's appraiser. After trial, the County submitted a post-trial brief that argued for higher property valuations than the market values assigned to the property by either appraiser. The court then adopted, verbatim, the County's proposed market valuations on the three assessment dates. The Supreme Court reversed the tax court's decision, holding that the court's findings and conclusions failed to meet the standard articulated in Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin, which states that when the tax court rejects the testimony of both appraisers, the court must give a basis for its calculations and provide an adequate explanation and factual support in the record for its conclusions. View "444 Lafayette, LLC v. County of Ramsey" on Justia Law

Michael Ferguson was convicted of one count of felony drive-by shooting at an occupied building and eight counts of second-degree assault, arising out of an incident in which multiple shots were fired at a duplex occupied by eight people. After Ferguson successfully appealed his original sentence, the district court imposed sentence on the drive-by shooting conviction and all eight assault convictions. On appeal, the court of appeals held that Minn. Stat. 609.035 required the district court to sentence Ferguson only on the drive-by shooting at an occupied building conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the sentence imposed by the district court, holding that the court of appeals misapplied the rule that a district court may not sentence a defendant to more than one crime for each victim, and that a single sentence for drive-by shooting at an occupied building was not commensurate with Ferguson's culpability for using a dangerous weapon to intentionally cause eight persons to fear immediately bodily harm. View "State v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Appellant Gary Roby was convicted of aiding and abetting the crimes of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder while committing aggravated robbery, and second-degree intentional murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Roby's conviction on appeal. Roby subsequently filed this, his third petition for postconviction relief, arguing that newly discovered evidence should be considered in the interests of justice. The postconviction court denied Roby's petition without an evidentiary hearing, holding (1) Roby's claims that were based on a 1989 police report and a 2002 letter were time-barred, and (2) Roby's remaining claims failed on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) all of Roby's claims were time-barred under the postconviction statute, and (2) Roby was not entitled to relief through application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. View "Roby v. State" on Justia Law

The City of Red Wing enacted an ordinance requiring inspections of rental property before landlords could obtain operating licenses and allowing the City to conduct inspections by application for and judicial approval of an administrative warrant in the absence of landlord or tenant consent. Appellants in this case were nine landlords and two tenants who refused to consent to inspections of their properties and successfully challenged three separate applications for administrative warrants. At the same time Appellants opposed the City's application, they filed a separate declaratory judgment action seeking to have the rental inspection ordinance declared unconstitutional. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment action for lack of standing, concluding that Appellants had not alleged an injury that was actual or imminent. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the challenge to the constitutionality of the rental inspection ordinance presented a justiciable controversy. Remanded. View "McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing" on Justia Law

Appellant Brent Kuhlmann was convicted after a jury trial of domestic assault and test refusal. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when it accepted a stipulation on elements of the charged offenses without advising him of his right to a jury trial on these elements and securing, either in writing or on the record, his personal waiver of the right to a jury trial on the stipulated elements. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in failing to obtain Appellant's personal waiver of the right to a jury trial on the previous-conviction elements of the charged offenses; (2) the trial court's failure to obtain Appellant's personal waiver of his right to a jury trial did not amount to structural error; and (3) under the plain error standard, the error did not affect Appellant's substantial rights or the outcome of the case. View "State v. Kuhlmann" on Justia Law

In 2004, Doctor informed Employer, a medical clinic, that he planned to exercise his rights under Employer's policy that rewarded length of service by giving benefits to physicians who were sixty years old or older and had at least fifteen years of taking night calls. Doctor agreed to postpone exercising his rights under the policy until the next year. In 2005, Employer told Doctor that the policy no longer existed. Doctor later withdrew from taking night call. As a result, Employer reduced Doctor's salary. In 2009, sued Employer for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, claiming Employer breached the policy by refusing to allow him to be exempt from night call without salary reduction. The district court granted Employer's motion to dismiss, holding that the two-year statute of limitations began to run in 2005 when Employer informed Doctor it would not honor its obligations under the policy. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a new cause of action accrued each time a payment was due but not paid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Doctor's cause of action accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, in 2005, and therefore, Doctor's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann" on Justia Law

Petitioners, including a state senator, filed a petition for writ of quo warranto challenging the authority of the county district court to authorize expenditures by any executive branch agency in the absence of legislative appropriations, the authority of the attorney general to seek authorization for such expenditures, and the authority of the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget to make payments for executive branch agency expenditures as authorized by the district court. The petition sought an order enjoining Respondents, including the attorney general, governor, commissioner, and chief judge of the district court, from seeking court orders that violated the state legislature's prerogatives to appropriate funds. In the meantime, the legislature passed, and the governor signed, appropriations for each state agency retroactive to the start of the biennium, and there were no further district court proceedings seeking funding. The Supreme Court found that the constitutional questions about the relative powers of the three branches of government were moot and would not arise again unless the legislative and executive branches failed to agree on a budget to fund a future biennium, and therefore, dismissed the petition as moot. View "Limmer v. Swanson" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge. Individual plaintiffs commenced lawsuits against two contractors that performed work on the bridge pursuant to contracts entered into with the State. The contractors brought third-party complaints against Jacobs Engineering Group on the basis that Jacobs' predecessor negligently designed the bridge. One contractor also filed a third-party complaint against the State. The State cross-claimed against Jacobs for contribution, indemnity, and statutory reimbursement. Jacobs moved to dismiss the State's cross-claim as time-barred, arguing that the reimbursement provision of the compensation statutes compensating survivor-claimants of the collapse did not retroactively revive causes of action against Jacobs that had been previously extinguished by a prior version of the statute of repose. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the provision retroactively revived the State's action for statutory reimbursement against Jacobs; (2) the provision did not violate Jacob's constitutional right to due process; and (3) revival of the action for statutory reimbursement did not unconstitutionally impair Jacobs' contractual obligations. View "In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig." on Justia Law