Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Vadnais Heights imposed an assessment on real property owned by McCullough and Songs, Inc. McCullough appealed the City’s decision. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that McCullough was precluded from appealing because it had failed to file a written objection to the proposed assessment. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a party opposed to a proposed amendment must object in writing before or at the assessment hearing to preserve its right to appeal the assessment to the district court. McCullough appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, vacated the court of appeals’ decision, and remanded, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the order denying summary judgment to the City. View "McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with first-degree premeditated murder. On the date of the murder, Appellant was seventeen years old. The district court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of release (LWOR). Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief claiming that he was entitled to a new trial because an eyewitness recanted his trial testimony and that his mandatory sentence of LWOR should be reversed based on Miller v. Alabama. The postconviction court denied Appellant’s petition after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed in part, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the eyewitness’s out-of-court statements were not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 804(b)(3); but (2) vacated Appellant’s LWOR sentence because the mandatory statutory scheme under which his sentence was imposed was unconstitutional as applied according to Montgomery v. Louisiana. Remanded for resentencing. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two first-degree murder offenses - premeditated murder and drive-by shooting - for the shooting death of one victim. The district court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on the first-degree premeditated murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The postconviction court denied relief without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not err in summarily denying relief. View "Griffin v. State" on Justia Law

Meagher & Geer, PLLP (MG) represented Ryan Contracting Company (Ryan) in an action to foreclose on several mechanic’s liens. Later, represented by O’Neill & Murphy, LLP (O’Neill), Ryan brought suit against MG for legal malpractice arising out of MG’s allegedly defective filing and foreclosure of Ryan’s mechanic’s liens. The district court granted MG’s motion to dismiss on the ground that O’Neill failed to timely file expert witness affidavits. Ryan then brought suit against O’Neill for legal malpractice arising out of O’Neill’s representation of Ryan in the MG lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment for O’Neill, concluding that the mechanic’s liens were not perfected, not because of MG’s conduct, but because of Ryan’s error in not filing the pre-lien notice to the property owner required by Minn. Stat. 514.011. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Ryan was exempt from the pre-lien notice requirement under section 514.011, and there were genuine issues of fact regarding the other issues. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Ryan was not required to give pre-lien notice to enforce its mechanic’s liens. View "Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP" on Justia Law

A School District expelled Student for six weeks after finding a pocketknife in a purse in her locker. The Commissioner of the Department of Education affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) Student did not willfully violate the District’s weapons policy when she unintentionally carried the pocketknife to school, and (2) the pocketknife’s presence in Student’s locker did not bring Student or others into danger. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record did not support the conclusion that Student deliberately and intentionally violated the District’s weapons policy; and (2) the record did not contain substantial evidence that Student exposed anyone to actual or even probable harm. View "In re Expulsion of A.D. from United S. Central Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to seven counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors for downloading and saving seven pornographic images of minors engaged in sexual conduct on seven different days. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion arguing (1) he could only be convicted and sentenced for one count of possession for possessing the computer, and (2) his offenses were part of a single behavioral incident. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant on each of the separate possession convictions, as Defendant’s sentences were completed at substantially different times, and his conduct was not motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective. View "State v. Bakken" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Hennepin County’s assessment of the market value of two bulk-distribution warehouses for two assessment dates in 2009 and 2010. The tax court adopted market valuations that were far lower than the recent sale price of each subject property. The County appealed, arguing that the tax court provided inadequate reasons for rejecting the County’s sales comparison analysis and for rejecting a large portion of the County’s income capitalization analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the tax court’s decision rejecting the County’s sales comparison analysis and vacated the tax court’s order, holding that the tax court (1) did not err in rejecting portions of the County’s income capitalization analysis, but (2) failed adequately to explain its reasons for rejecting the County’s sales comparison analysis. Remanded. View "Archway Marketing Servs. v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

Appellant filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Scott County and Credit River Township, claiming that the County took his property without just compensation by placing conditions on the approval of his plat application. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because Appellant’s exclusive avenue for review of the County’s decision was to seek a writ of certiorari from the court of appeals. The district court determined that it had jurisdiction over the action. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the County’s plat approval subject to conditions was a quasi-judicial action, which was reviewable only by certiorari appeal within sixty days. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over Appellant’s section 1983 action. View "Zweber v. Credit River Township" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a Norgaard plea to third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The district court imposed a downward durational departure from the presumptive sentence, concluding in part that Appellant’s remorse provided substantial reasons to depart from the presumptive sentence length. The court of appeals reversed the downward durational departure because Appellant’s remorse did not make his conduct "less serious than the typical offense.” The court further found that even if Appellant’s remorse were a mitigating factor, Appellant was not entitled to a downward departure based on one mitigating factor alone. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a single mitigating factor may provide a substantial reason to impose a downward durational sentencing departure; but (2) a downward durational departure was not warranted in this case because Appellant’s expressions of remorse did not diminish the seriousness of his offense. View "State v. Solberg" on Justia Law

Homeowners brought an action against a City alleging that the City’s non-employee City Engineer was negligent and caused a nuisance. The City Engineer performed the allegedly negligent acts under a contract with the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the negligence claim based on vicarious official immunity but denied summary judgment on the nuisance claim, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact for trial. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the City was entitled to vicarious official immunity for the negligent design claim but reversed the denial of summary judgment on the nuisance claim, concluding that vicarious official immunity applied to the nuisance claim because the alleged nuisance arose from the same immune conduct as the alleged negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City was entitled to vicarious official immunity for both the Homeowners’ claims. View "Kariniemi v. City of Rockford" on Justia Law