Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the claims raised in the petition were procedurally barred and that the district court's failure to address Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not require a remand.Defendant was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that counsel, the judge, and the prosecutor committed reversible errors during trial. In a supporting memorandum, Defendant alleged an additional claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied the petition without a hearing and failed to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims were barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976); and (2) the facts conclusively showed that Defendant was entitled to no relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Zumberge v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, holding that Defendant's claim failed on the merits.In his petition for postconviction relief Defendant argued that his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder must be set aside based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's postconviction petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant was entitled to no relief on his postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "Petersen v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Petitioner's third petition for postconviction relief, holding that Petitioner was conclusively entitled to no relief.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of relief. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the district court committed plain error when it gave the pattern jury instruction on premeditation. The Supreme Court affirmed. Twelve years later, Petitioner filed this petition arguing that the district court's instruction on premeditation did not accurately state the law. The district court summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even when the alleged facts were viewed in a light most favorable to Petitioner, he was conclusively entitled to no relief. View "Goodloe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Saint Paul and dismissing Appellant's petition asserting that the City erred by refusing to put his proposed amendment to the City Charter before the voters in the next election, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden to prove that his petition met statutory requirements.In rejecting the petition, the City relied on the statewide voter registration system (SVRS) in concluding that Appellant's petition did not have the requisite number of signatures. In his petition, Appellant argued that the City erred by relying on the SVRS to invalidate signatures and in refusing to put his proposed charter amendment before voters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the City did not err by relying on the SVRS to determine eligibility and rejecting signatures of those who were registered to vote at an address outside the City; and (2) Appellant did not meet his burden to show that the City erred in rejecting the petition signatures. View "Butler v. City of Saint Paul" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing this defamation action, holding that a corporate officer who did not author a defamatory statement but participated in the publication of the statement may be held personally liable for defamation.Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, the chief executive officer of Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., alleging that Defendant authorized, directed, and approved defamatory statements about Plaintiff in a Dakota Plains press release. The district court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings because the complaint did not allege that Defendant made or authored the defamatory statements in the press release. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if Plaintiff's allegations are true, Defendant may be held personally liable for his participation; and (2) Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pleaded a defamation claim to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. View "DeRosa v. McKenzie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants' action seeking judicial review of a zoning variance granted by the Town of Duluth to Charles and Carol Danielson-Bille (the Billes), holding that the Billes should have been joined as a necessary party under Minn. R. Civ. P. 19.01.The Billes sought to build a retirement home on Lake Superior. The Town of Duluth Board of Supervisors granted a zoning variance. In appealing the decision, Appellants properly served Duluth within the thirty-day appeal period set forth in the local Duluth ordinance that authorized judicial review of the zoning variance decision but failed to serve the Billes within the same thirty-day period. Duluth and the Billes filed motions to dismiss, asserting that service was improper. The district court dismissed Billes from the case because they had not been timely served and then dismissed the entire action with prejudice, determining that the Billes were a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19.01 and that the action could not proceed without them. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by dismissing the action rather than joining the Billes to the action under Rule 19.01. View "Schulz v. Town of Duluth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the officer formed a reasonable, articulable suspicion to make the traffic stop that led to Defendant's arrest.The officer informed Defendant that he had been stopped because the car's windshield was cracked and because it did not appear that Defendant had been wearing his seat belt. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving while impaired and violating his driver's license restriction. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop, alleging that the stop was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the officer was not justified in stopping Defendant for the crack in his windshield but that the evidence supported a conclusion that the officer had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was not wearing his seat belt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the officer's observation that Defendant was not wearing his seat belt was mistaken, the mistake was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. View "State v. Poehler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that, by the plain words of Minn. Stat. 604.02, a tortfeasor's liability to an injured employee is not reduced by the employer's fault.At issue was whether the 2003 amendment to Minn. Stat. 604.02, subd. 1 overturned the line of decisions holding that an employer liable to an injured employee under the Workers' Compensation Act and a third party liable in tort to that same employee do not have either joint or several liability. In this case, an employee was injured in the workplace. The employee and his employer settled the workers' compensation claim. The employee brought a negligence against the tortfeasor, which brought a third-party contribution claim against the employer. The jury found that the injury was caused by the employee, the employer, and the tortfeasor. The district court applied section 604.02 to reduce the net damage award to the employee by an amount proportionate to the employer's fault. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the lower court erred in applying section 604.02 under the circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tortfeasor's liability to the employee was not reduced by the fault of the employer. View "Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) ruling that Minn. Stat. 176.179 did not apply to Appellant's vacated workers' compensation award, holding that no mistaken compensation was paid, and thus, section 176.179 did not apply.Appellant injured his low back during the course of his employment and entered into a settlement agreement with his employer. The WCCA approved the settlement by an award. Appellant later petitioned to vacate the award, arguing that there was a mutual mistake of fact when the settlement was entered into and a substantial change in his medical condition that could not have been anticipated at the time of the award. The WCCA vacated the award based on the substantial change in Appellant's medical condition. When Appellant then filed a claim petition for additional benefits the parties disagreed as to whether Employer was entitled to a credit for the $40,000 already paid under the vacated award. The compensation judge ruled that section 176.179 did not apply and that Employer was entitled to full credit against Appellant's claim for benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding because no mistake of fact or law occurred, no mistaken compensation was paid and that section 176.179 did not apply. View "Block v. Exterior Remodelers, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree manslaughter, holding that the plain language of the first-degree manslaughter statute, Minn. Stat. 609.20(2), does not require the State to prove that death or great bodily harm was a reasonably foreseeable result when the underlying crime is fifth-degree assault.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a conviction for first-degree manslaughter required proof that he committed fifth-degree assault with such violence or force that great bodily harm or death was reasonably foreseeable. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in declining to so instruct the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 609.20(2) does not require the State to prove that death or great bodily harm was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct when the underlying crime is fifth-degree assault. View "State v. Stay" on Justia Law