Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Menard, Inc. challenged Clay County’s assessment of the market value of Menard’s home improvement retail store as of January 2, 2011 through January 2, 2014. A trial ensued before the tax court, after which the court adopted market valuations below the County’s assessment values but above Menard’s expert appraiser’s valuation. Both Menard and the County appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax court’s value determinations, holding that the tax court did not err in weighting the sales comparison approach and the cost approach for the valuation years at issue and did not fail adequately to explain its reasoning for that decision. View "Menard, Inc. v. County of Clay" on Justia Law

Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation (MERC) challenged the Commissioner of Revenue’s 2008 to 2012 valuation of its natural-gas pipeline distribution system. After a trial, the Commissioner determined (1) for each of the years from 2008 to 2011, the market value of MERC’s property was lower than the Commissioner’s valuation; and (2) for 2012, the Commissioner undervalued MERC’s pipeline distribution system. Both MERC and the Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the tax court’s explanation of the beta factors it used to calculate MERC’s cost of equity was insufficient; and (2) the tax court evaluated MERC’s evidence of external obsolescence under the wrong legal standard. Remanded. View "Minnesota Energy Resources Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

Hennepin County assessed real estate taxes on two properties owned by STRIB IV, LLC. STRIB IV applied to the County to classify the properties under Minnesota’s Green Acres statute, but the County denied the application. The tax court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax court’s order, holding that STRIB IV’s subject properties did not qualify for Green Acres classification, as the Green Acres statute does not include properties owned by single-member LLCs such as STRIB IV, and the result required by the Green Acres statute’s plain language is not absurd. View "STRIB IV, LLC v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person for possessing a BB gun. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that an air-powered BB gun is a “firearm” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 609.165 and that section 609.165 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant’s conviction, holding that an air-powered BB gun is not a “firearm” under the plain meaning of section 609.165, and therefore, Defendant’s possession of an air-powered BB gun did not violate the statute. View "State v. Haywood" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang on an accomplice-liability theory. The Supreme Court affirmed. After unsuccessfully filing two postconviction petitions, Appellant filed a third postconviction petition in which he alleged that three witnesses presented false testimony at his trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied Appellant’s third postconviction petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction court did not err when it rejected Appellant’s claim that the prosecutor intimidated a recanting witness when it apprised the witness of his Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) the postconviction court did not err when it struck the testimony the witness gave before invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. View "Caldwell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree felony murder. The district court sentenced Defendant, who was eighteen years old at the time he committed the offense, to life in prison without the possibility of release for the first-degree premeditated murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress his confessions because the confessions were voluntary; (2) Defendant forfeited his claim that his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because he was psychologically and socially a juvenile when he committed the crime; and (3) because the order attached to the Warrant of Commitment incorrectly listed convictions for the two lesser-included offenses, those two convictions are vacated. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

After Defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired, officers requested that he submit to a warrantless blood or urine test. Defendant agreed to provide a urine sample, but the officer believed that Defendant tampered with the sample and therefore treated his conduct as a refusal. Defendant refused to submit to a blood test. The State charged Defendant with first-degree refusal. Defendant pleaded guilty. Defendant later argued that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the test refusal statute was unconstitutional as applied. The postconviction court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed. After deciding State v. Bernard, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision that the test refusal statute was constitutional and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, the court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant cannot be prosecuted for refusing to submit to an unconstitutional warrantless blood test, and the test refusal statute is unconstitutional as applied. View "State v. Trahan" on Justia Law

After Defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired, officers asked him to submit to a warrantless blood or urine test. Defendant refused both tests. The State charged Defendant with second-degree test refusal, among other counts. Defendant moved to dismiss the test refusal charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty of test refusal. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that charging a defendant with test refusal violates a fundamental right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the test refusal statute is unconstitutional as applied to Defendant. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a petition under Minn. Stat. 204B.44 asserting that Respondents - the Secretary of State, the Ramsey County and Hennepin County election managers, and certain election judges - were not taking the necessary steps to ensure that those ineligible to vote were not permitted to vote, in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine and the constitutional rights of eligible voters. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that, even if the petition properly invoked the Court’s original jurisdiction under section 204B.44, the Court would not exercise it in this case because an exercise of original jurisdiction over this case was not warranted. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Simon" on Justia Law

Mark Juelich and Steven Thoemke, former employees of Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. (TLM), claimed that TLM failed to pay them commissions they earned under their employment agreements with TLM. Juelich and Thoemke sought penalties under Minn. Stat. 181.14. The district court determined that TLM owed additional commissions to Juelich and Thoemke totaling $104,000 and that TLM was entitled to recover $815,000 from American Warehouse Systems, LLC (AWS) due to AWS’s breach of an asset purchase agreement entered into by AWS and TLM and its unjust retention of customer payments owed to TLM. The district court denied the request of Juelich and Thoemke for penalties under section 181.14, reasoning that the $814,000 judgment owed to TLM from AWS offset the unpaid commissions owed to Juelich and Thoemke. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that TLM was liable for statutory penalties under section 181.14. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when a court determines whether an employer is liable to an employee for the statutory penalty for nonpayment of wages under section 181.14, the court may not consider offsetting liabilities owed by the employee to the employer. View "Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Sys., LLC" on Justia Law