Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant for copyright infringement and obtained a money judgment in California. The judgment against Defendant was filed and docketed in a Minnesota district court. Plaintiff subsequently served a garnishment summons on Defendant and sought to attach Defendant’s domain name and the content of its related website. The district court concluded that neither the domain name nor its associated website constituted property subject to garnishment under Minn. Stat. 571.73(3). The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an Internet domain name constitutes intangible personal property subject to attachment by garnishment under section 571.73(3)(3). View "Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision. After settling her primary uninsured motorist (UM) claim, Appellant sought excess UM benefits from an American Family Mutual Insurance Group policy that covered her vehicle. American Family denied the claim. In 2013, Appellant filed a lawsuit seeking excess UM benefits from American Family. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family, concluding that the excess UM claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions and that Appellant’s claim accrued on the date of the accident. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that claims for excess UM benefits accrue on the date of the accident, and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of American Family. View "Hegseth v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Group" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants for medical malpractice. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficient process and and insufficient service of process. The district court (1) denied the motions to dismiss for insufficient process, concluding that, although the summons and complaint were defective due to the lack of a Minnesota attorney’s signature, the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure granted the court discretion to allow the summons and complaint to be cured by amendment; and (2) denied the motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process as to some defendants, finding those defendants to have been validly served, but granted the motions with respect to the remaining defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the summons and complaint bearing only the signature of an attorney not licensed to practice in Minnesota were defective, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing them to be amended; and (2) Plaintiffs in this case produced sufficient evidence of effective service, and Defendants did not satisfy their burden to prove that service was not effective, and therefore, the district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service. View "DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants for medical malpractice. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficient process and and insufficient service of process. The district court (1) denied the motions to dismiss for insufficient process, concluding that, although the summons and complaint were defective due to the lack of a Minnesota attorney’s signature, the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure granted the court discretion to allow the summons and complaint to be cured by amendment; and (2) denied the motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process as to some defendants, finding those defendants to have been validly served, but granted the motions with respect to the remaining defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the summons and complaint bearing only the signature of an attorney not licensed to practice in Minnesota were defective, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing them to be amended; and (2) Plaintiffs in this case produced sufficient evidence of effective service, and Defendants did not satisfy their burden to prove that service was not effective, and therefore, the district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service. View "DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconvction relief raising several legal claims without providing factual support for any of them. Appellant separately moved for additional time to file an addendum that would set forth the necessary factual support for his petition. Appellant then moved to disqualify the postconviction judge assigned to his postconviction proceeding. The postconviction judge denied both Appellant’s motion to disqualify and the motion for additional time to file an addendum. Thereafter, the postconviction court denied Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, ruling that most of Appellant’s claims could have been raised on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction judge erred by failing to refer to the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District Appellant’s motion to disqualify, but the error was harmless; and (2) the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief and motion for additional time to file an addendum. View "Rossberg v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants’ homeowners insurance policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company provided that State Farm will be only the “actual cash value” at the time of the loss of damaged property. Appellants brought a putative class action lawsuit against State Farm, claiming that State Farm breached the terms of Appellants’ policy when it calculated the actual cash value of damaged property. Specifically, Appellants alleged that State Farm’s practice of depreciating embedded labor costs breached State Farm’s duty to indemnify the insured for the actual cash value of the damaged property. The district court certified a question regarding the issue to the Supreme Court. The Court answered that, absent specific language in the insurance policy that identifies the method of calculating actual cash value, the trier of fact may consider, among many other factors, embedded-labor-cost depreciation when such evidence logically tends to establish the actual cash value of a covered loss. View "Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of third-degree possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the heroin seized from the car he was driving on the grounds that the police unlawfully searched the car without a warrant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Defendant or to search his car. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s car was lawful under the automobile exception because there was probable cause to believe that Defendant’s car contained contraband, and therefore, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Lester" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder while committing child abuse, second-degree felony murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The district court imposed a life sentence with eligibility for supervised release after thirty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the jury instruction describing felony malicious punishment of a child as a type of child abuse was plainly erroneous, but Appellant failed to establish that the erroneous jury instruction affected her substantial rights; (2) assuming that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed a state expert to testify that biting a child is a “particularly vicious” form of child abuse, there was no reasonable likelihood that the testimony significantly affected the verdict in this case; and (3) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument, but the prosecutorial misconduct did not affect Appellant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Peltier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder while committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that the district court committed three errors entitling him to relief. The postconviction court denied relief on all grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s request to introduce alternative-perpetrator evidence; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s request for a lesser-included-offense instruction on second-degree intentional murder; and (3) the trial judge presiding at Defendant’s jury trial was not disqualified based on an appearance of partiality. View "Troxel v. State" on Justia Law

The apartment building in which Tenants lived was damaged by a fire. For purposes of this appeal, the parties agreed that the fire was caused by Tenants’ negligence. Landlord’s insurer paid for the repairs to the building and then brought this subrogation action against Tenants in the name of Landlord to recover the money it paid to repair the damage caused by the fire. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Tenants, determining that the parties did not reasonably expect that Tenants would be liable for the damage they caused. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the lease agreement clearly reflected the parties’ intention that Tenants would reimburse Landlord for any damage caused by their negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, it is reasonable that Tenants should be liable for negligence they caused to the leased premises; but (2) the parties would not reasonably have expected that Tenants would be liable for damage to other property belonging to Landlord. Remanded. View "Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua" on Justia Law