Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Contrary to the holding of the district court, Appellant filed a timely legal-malpractice claim under Minn. Stat. 541.05(1)(5).Respondent, Appellant’s attorney, prepared an antenuptial agreement for Appellant and his then-fiancee, Cynthia Gatliff, but the agreement did not include statutorily required witness signatures, making it unenforceable. One year after Appellant married Gatliff, Respondent drafted a will for Appellant that incorporated the antenuptial agreement by reference. When Gatliff later filed for divorce, she alleged that the antenuptial agreement was invalid due to its lack of witness signatures. Appellant subsequently sued Respondent for legal malpractice. While the invalid execution of the antenuptial agreement fell outside the six-year limitations period for malpractice claims, Appellant argued that subsequent representations by Respondent that the anteuptial agreement was valid were separate legal-malpractice claims that each triggered their own statute of limitations periods. The district court granted Respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant sufficiently alleged that Respondent’s will drafting formed the basis for a separate malpractice claims within the limitations period. View "Frederick v. Wallerich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s third petition for postconviction relief, which asserted several claims based on facts alleged in two sworn affidavits, holding that the affidavits were legally insufficient to establish that Appellant was innocent of the offenses of which he was convicted. The postconviction court summarily denied the postconviction petition because it was filed after the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. 590.01(4)(a) had expired and failed to meet the newly-discovered-evidence exception in Minn. Stat. 590.01(4)(b)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts were legally insufficient to show that Appellant met the newly-discovered-evidence exception, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied the petition as untimely filed. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Past physical abuse, standing alone, can support the issuance of an order for protection (OFP) under the Domestic Abuse Act, Minn. Stat. 518B.01, because the Act imposes no temporal requirement on when the “domestic abuse” occurred.The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred when it concluded, as a matter of law, that a finding of past domestic abuse alone is insufficient to support the issuance of an OFP without a showing of a present intent to cause or inflict fear of imminent physical harm. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that, under subdivision 2(a)(1) of the Act, a petition need only show that “physical harm, bodily injury, or assault” has actually occurred, regardless of when it occurred, to satisfy the first definition of “domestic abuse.” View "Thompson v. Schrimsher" on Justia Law

A facsimile transmission is not a “delivery” under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c), which requires that a summons be “delivered” to the sheriff before an action is commenced, because Rule 3.01(c) contemplates personal delivery to the office of the sheriff.In this case, Plaintiff faxed a summons and complaint to the sheriffs in two counties. Deputy sheriffs from both counties personally served Defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that facsimile transmission did not constitute “delivery” of the summons under Rule 3.01(c). The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the sheriffs completed service of process on each of the defendants, thus commencing Plaintiff’s action under Rule 3.01(a). View "Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A facsimile transmission is not a “delivery” under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c), which requires that a summons be “delivered” to the sheriff before an action is commenced, because Rule 3.01(c) contemplates personal delivery to the office of the sheriff.In this case, Plaintiff faxed a summons and complaint to the sheriffs in two counties. Deputy sheriffs from both counties personally served Defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that facsimile transmission did not constitute “delivery” of the summons under Rule 3.01(c). The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the sheriffs completed service of process on each of the defendants, thus commencing Plaintiff’s action under Rule 3.01(a). View "Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the postconviction court’s summary denial of Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief, in which Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the prosecutor improperly refused to renew her initial plea offer.Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. After Appellant filed his pro se petition for postconviction relief, Appellant asked the postconviction court to appoint counsel. The postconviction court referred Appellant’s request for counsel to the state public defender, which declined to represent Appellant. The district court then denied Appellant’s postconviction petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant was entitled to an appointed attorney for postconviction proceedings because he did not have a “review” on direct appeal; and (2) therefore, the postconviction court erred in not granting Appellant’s request for counsel. View "State v. Eason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the postconviction court’s summary denial of Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief, in which Appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the prosecutor improperly refused to renew her initial plea offer.Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. After Appellant filed his pro se petition for postconviction relief, Appellant asked the postconviction court to appoint counsel. The postconviction court referred Appellant’s request for counsel to the state public defender, which declined to represent Appellant. The district court then denied Appellant’s postconviction petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant was entitled to an appointed attorney for postconviction proceedings because he did not have a “review” on direct appeal; and (2) therefore, the postconviction court erred in not granting Appellant’s request for counsel. View "State v. Eason" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Defendant committed burglary when he entered another guest’s hotel room without that guest’s consent and committed a crime in that room.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilt of first-degree burglary. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove the essential element of burglary that he entered a building without consent. Specifically, Defendant argued that, as a paying guest at the hotel, he had consent to enter the hotel building and, therefore, could not commit burglary while in the hotel. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that when Defendant entered the victim’s hotel room he exceeded the scope of his consent to be present in the hotel building. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Defendant committed burglary when he entered another guest’s hotel room without that guest’s consent and committed a crime in that room.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilt of first-degree burglary. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove the essential element of burglary that he entered a building without consent. Specifically, Defendant argued that, as a paying guest at the hotel, he had consent to enter the hotel building and, therefore, could not commit burglary while in the hotel. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that when Defendant entered the victim’s hotel room he exceeded the scope of his consent to be present in the hotel building. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect a person from being ordered to prove a fingerprint to unlock a seized cellphone.The police lawfully seized a cellphone from Defendant and attempted to execute a valid warrant to search the cellphone, which had a fingerprint-scanner security lock that prevented the search. When Defendant refused to block the cellphone with his fingerprint the district court ordered Defendant to provide his fingerprint so the police could search the cellphone’s contents. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that providing a fingerprint was not privileged under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because providing the fingerprint elicited only physical evidence from Defendant and did not reveal the contents of his mind, no violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination occurred. View "State v. Diamond" on Justia Law