Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's sentence on count two, first-degree criminal sexual conduct, holding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a greater than double durational departure on count two.The district court imposed 360-month, consecutive sentences for Defendant's two convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, imposing these greater-than-double durational departures on the sentences based on the aggravating factors of particular cruelty and the particular vulnerability of the victim. In reversing the sentence on count two, the court of appeals determined that imposing a greater-than-double durational departure on a consecutive sentence when both counts involved a single victim unduly exaggerated the criminality of Defendant's conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that this was not an extremely rare case involving severe aggravating circumstances, and therefore, the district court erred in imposing a greater-than-double durational departure on count two. View "State v. Barthman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant's petition.Appellant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal concerned Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief, in which Appellant requested a new trial based on four theories of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied the petition, concluding, among other things, that Appellant's claims were time barred under Minn. Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's petition was time-barred and Appellant did not meet the interests of justice exception to the time bar. View "Fox v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that James Bergman was not disqualified from receiving a permit to carry a firearm, holding that the sealing of judicial records under a court's inherent authority does not satisfy the federal requirement of expungement.In 2007, a Minnesota district court issued an expungement order under its inherent authority sealing the judicial records of Bergman's prior conviction of domestic assault. Thereafter, Bergman applied for a permit to carry a firearm. Bergman was granted the permit. In 2017, the Isanti County Sheriff denied Bergman's permit-to-carry application because of his prior domestic assault conviction. The district court denied Bergman's petition for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the sealing of judicial records under a district court's inherent authority is not sufficient under federal law to expunge a previous conviction and thereby reinstate an applicant's right to carry a firearm in Minnesota. View "Bergman v. Caulk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the tax court reducing Hennepin County's valuation of a Lowe's store in Plymouth, Minnesota for the 2015 tax year, holding that the tax court did not inflate the property's fair market value and did not violate Lowe's due process rights.Lowe's petitioned the tax court asserting that Hennepin County's assessment for the 2015 tax year overstated the fair market value of the property. The tax court agreed and reduced the County's valuation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tax court did not violate Lowe's due process rights by failing to rely on evidence in the record in reaching its conclusions; and (2) because the record supported the tax court's decision to place greater weight on the cost approach rather than on the sales approach and its adjustments under both approaches, the tax court did not violate Lowe's due process rights. View "Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (Plymouth) v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the conclusion of the district court that Mother had to notify her three children's biological father of her request to change the children's names, holding that where Mother was the only parent listed on her children's birth certificates and no one had been adjudicated as their father, Mother was the legal parent with authority to apply to change her children's names.At issue was the notice provision found in Minn. Stat. 259.10 relating to name-change applications on behalf of minors. The district court determined that the biological father had a legally recognized parent-child relationship with the eldest two children and was therefore entitled to notice of the name-change petitions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Mother was the only legal parent of her three minor children the district court erred when it determined that the biological father was a "parent" under section 259.10. View "In re Application of J.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's conclusion that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (the MFLSA) does not preempt the ordinance enacted by the City of Minneapolis that requires employers to pay minimum-wage rates that are higher than the rates set forth in the MFLSA, holding that district court correctly ruled that the MFLSA does not preempt the ordinance.The MFLSA establishes the minimum wage Minnesota employers must pay their employees. At issue was whether the City's ordinance requiring employers to pay minimum-wage rates higher than the rates set forth in the MFLSA was preempted by the MFLSA. The district court determined that state law does not preempt the ordinance because the MFLSA sets a floor, not a ceiling, for minimum-wage rates. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the MFLSA sets a floor, which does not prohibit, but instead permits, employers to pay the higher wage the ordinance requires; and (2) the Legislature did not intend to occupy the field of minimum-wage rates through the MFLSA. View "Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's dismissal of Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls' common-law claims and statutory warranty claims, holding that, for statute of repose purposes, a single warranty date applies to an entire condominium claim and that the two buildings in this case that compromised a condominium building were separate improvements to real property.In dismissing Village Lofts' claims, the district court concluded that the claims were barred by the statutes of repose in Minn. Stat. 541.051. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) in determining how the statute of repose operates for claims of breach of the statutory warranties in Minn. Stat. ch. 327A, a single warranty date applies to each unit within a condominium building; and (2) the two buildings that compromised the condominium development at issue in this case constituted two separate improvements to real property for purposes of applying the repose period in Minn. Stat. 541.051 to defective and unsafe condition claims. View "Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court dismissing Avis Budget Car Rental's property tax petition for failure to disclose certain concession fee information as required by Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6, holding that the tax court did not err in dismissing the petition.On appeal, Avis argued that disclosure of the concession fee information was not required by the mandatory disclosure provision and that, even if disclosure of the concession fee was mandatory, other information provided to Hennepin County satisfied that requirement. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the concession fees were subject to the mandatory disclosure provision, and such information was not disclosed by Avis by the deadline; and (2) because the information provided to Hennepin County was not disclosed by Avis the tax court properly dismissed the petition. View "Avis Budget Car Rental LLC v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court dismissing the property tax petition filed by Enterprise Leasing Company of Minnesota for failure to disclose certain concession fee information as required by Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6, holding that the tax court did not err in dismissing the petition.Specifically, the Court held that, for the reasons explained in Avis Budget Car Rental LLC v. County of Hennepin, __ N.W.2d __, also decided this day, the tax court did not err in dismissing Enterprise's petition because the concession fees at issue in this case were subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of Minn. Stat. 278.05, subd. 6 and Enterprise did not comply with the requirements of the statute. View "Enterprise Leasing Co. of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law