Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory of liability and one count of second-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) assuming that the district court’s failure to give the jury an instruction that accomplice testimony must be corroborated was plain error, the error did not affect Defendant's substantial rights; (2) the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) any flaws in the indictment did not prejudice Defendant's substantial rights. View "State v. Davenport" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's Minnesota Human Rights Act and common-law negligence claims against a university and a hospital for race- and sex-based discrimination, holding that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's employment discrimination claim under the Act and Plaintiff's common-law negligence claims.Plaintiff's claims stemmed from discrimination she allegedly experienced during a practicum program as a graduate student. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims under the Act as time barred and dismissed her common-law negligence claims for failure to establish that Defendants owed her a common-law duty separate from the obligations owed under the Act. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff's employment discrimination claim under the act against Allina Health System was timely, and the district court erred in determining that Plaintiff's lack of compensation from the practicum barred her claim; (2) Plaintiff's remaining statutory discrimination claims against Defendants were time barred; and (3) Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to maintain her common-law negligence claims. View "Abel v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's dismissal of a medical malpractice action brought against a hospital system based on the alleged negligence of independent contractors involved in providing care for a patient in the emergency rooms of two different hospitals owned by the hospital system, holding that a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor based on the doctrine of apparent authority.In granting the hospital system's motion to dismiss, the district court ruled that a hospital is not vicariously liable for the acts of non-employees. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff states a vicarious liability claim against a hospital for the professional negligence of independent contractors in the hospital's emergency room based on a theory of apparent authority if the hospital held itself out as a provider of emergency medical care and the patient looked to the hospital, rather than a specific doctor, for care and relied on the hospital to select the physical and other medical professionals to provide the necessary services. View "Popovich v. Allina Health System" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that an ordinance adopted by the City of Minneapolis that prohibits certain property owners, property managers, and others from refusing to rent property to prospective tenants in order to avoid the burden of complying with the requirements of Section 8 of the United States Housing Act survives due process and equal protection rational basis scrutiny, holding that the ordinance is constitutional.Plaintiffs, property owners who owned and rented residential properties in the City, alleged, among other things, that the ordinance violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that the ordinance violated equal protection and due process protections. The court of appeals reversed on both claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Minneapolis ordinance did not violate the Minnesota Constitution's guarantee of substantive due process or equal protection guarantee. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's third petition for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant's petition was untimely under Minn. Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(c).Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. After his first and second petitions for postconviction relief were denied, Defendant filed a third petition for postconviction relief. The district court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that Defendant's attempt to invoke the interests-of-justice exception was untimely under section 590.01, subd. 4(c). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the petition as untimely. View "Pearson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of malicious punishment of a child - less than substantial bodily harm, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.377, subd. 2, holding that section 609.377 does not require the State to prove both that a defendant used unreasonable force and that it was in the course of punishment.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the malicious punishment of a child statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, the interpretation being that the State must prove that a defendant used unreasonable force but need not prove that the force occurred in the course of punishment; and (2) because Defendant's insufficiency of the evidence claim is premised on the erroneous conclusion that the State needs to prove that she used unreasonable force in the course of punishment, Defendant failed to show that the State presented insufficient evidence. View "State v. Altepeter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief arguing that the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and later clarified in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. __ (2016), should be extended to adult offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's postconviction petition.Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of release. Defendant was eighteen years and seven days old on the date of the offense. On appeal from the denial of his postconviction motion, Defendant renewed his Miller/Montgomery argument and further asked the Supreme Court to interpret Minn. Const. art. I, 5 to provide greater protection than the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the Miller/Montgomery rule is clearly limited to juvenile offenders under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's petition for postconviction relief; and (2) Defendant forfeited appellate review of his claim under the Minnesota Constitution. View "Nelson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals denying B.H.'s petition for a writ of prohibition asking that the district court be prohibited from enforcing its written order stating that she was required to provide her cell phone to defense counsel, holding that the district court's order denying B.H.'s motion to quash was unauthorized by law and that the issuance of the writ was necessary to prevent irremediable harm to B.H.After the State charged Defendant with third-degree criminal sexual conduct the district court granted Defendant's motion for a subpoena requiring B.H., the alleged victim of the sexual assault, to produce her cell phone to a computer forensic expert hired by Defendant. B.H. filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The district court denied the motion and ordered B.H. to produce her phone to defense counsel or Defendant's expert. B.H. filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when it failed to analyze whether compliance with the subpoena was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances the district court committed an error of law for which no other adequate remedy exists and which would result in irremediable harm to B.H. View "State v. Yildirim" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding taxable costs for denying a first-party insurance claim in violation of Minn. Stat. 604.18, subd. 2(a), holding that the district court did not clearly err.After a bench trial, the district court found that Western National Mutual Insurance Company did not have a reasonable basis for denying Alison Joel Peterson's claim for insurance benefits and acted in reckless disregard of its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in determining that a reasonable insurer, who had the information that Western National had, would not have denied Peterson's claim for benefits; and (2) the district court did not clearly err by finding that Western National knew, or recklessly disregarded information that would have allowed it to know, that it lacked an objectively reasonable basis for denying benefits to Peterson. View "Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals concluding that Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(4) was constitutionally overbroad and could not be saved through a narrowing construction or by severing part of it, holding that subdivision 1(4) criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech and is thus unconstitutional on its face.Defendant was charged with one felony count of attempted coercion under section 609.275, the attempted coercion statute. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute was overly broad in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(4) is substantially overbroad and cannot be narrowed or saved by severance and therefore must be invalidated as violating the First Amendment. View "State v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law