Mn Judicial Branch Logo
Find Court
    
   

Home > Appellate Courts > Supreme Court >

Supreme Court Opinions

 Click to subscribe


IMPORTANT NOTICE

Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.

Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail.  All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately.  Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address.  Please go to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=156 for instructions how to register your e-mail address. 


 

 

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.

 

A13-1820       In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:  R.D.L. and J.W., Parents.
                     Court of Appeals.
           1.   Because the right to parent is a fundamental right, statutes that infringe on this fundamental right are subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection provisions of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
           2.   Assuming, without deciding, that a strict scrutiny analysis applies and that within that analysis a claimant must show at the threshold that he or she is “similarly situated” to challenge a statute on equal protection grounds, parents facing a subsequent petition to terminate their parental rights, whether those rights were terminated voluntarily or involuntarily, are similarly situated.
           3.   The rebuttable statutory presumption of parental unfitness found in Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2012), is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and therefore does not violate the equal protection provisions of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
           Affirmed.  Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
           Dissenting, Justice Alan C. Page.


A13-0121       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Corey Joel Eichers, Appellant.
                     Court of Appeals.
           1.   Removing a package from an airport mailroom conveyor belt and placing it on the floor to be sniffed by a narcotics-detection dog is not a seizure under either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution because the movement of the package does not constitute meaningful interference with the addressee’s possessory interests in the package.
           2.   No reasonable expectation of privacy is violated when an officer conducts a minimally intrusive dog sniff of a package in an airport mailroom, and thus the dog sniff in this case was not a search for purposes of either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.
           3.   Because neither a search nor a seizure occurred, there was no violation of either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution, regardless of whether the officer’s actions were reasonably justified, and the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress evidence. 
           Affirmed.  Justice G. Barry Anderson.
           Took no part, Justice Alan C. Page.


A14-0312       Frank Duane Lussier, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                     Beltrami County.
           1.   The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s challenge to his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing.
           2.   The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing.
           Affirmed.  Justice David R. Stras.
           Took no part, Justice Wilhelmina M. Wright.


A12-1575       Alice Ann Staab, Respondent, vs. Diocese of St. Cloud, Appellant.
A12-1972       Court of Appeals.
           A party that is severally liable under Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1 (2012), cannot be ordered to contribute more than that party’s equitable share of the total damages award under the reallocation-of-damages provision in Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 2 (2012).
           Reversed and remanded.  Justice Wilhelmina M. Wright.
           Dissenting, Justices David L. Lillehaug and Alan C. Page.


A14-0254       LumiData, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent.
                     Tax Court.
           1.   The taxpayer’s software sales are taxable as “prewritten computer software” as defined in Minn. Stat. § 297A.61, subd. 17 (2012), because the taxpayer did not separately state its customization charges.
           2.   Because the taxpayer did not establish “reasonable cause” under Minn. Stat. § 270C.34 (2012) to believe that the taxpayer’s software sales were nontaxable, the Commissioner did not clearly err by assessing late-filing and late-payment penalties.
           Affirmed.  Justice Wilhelmina M. Wright.

 

ORDERS

A12-1978       Lawrence Leiendecker, et al., Respondents, vs. Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al.,
A12-2015       Appellants.
                     Supreme Court.
           Petition for rehearing granted in part, opinion modified, reversed and remanded to the court of appeals; motion for attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 544.04 denied; motion for taxation of costs and disbursements granted in part and denied in part.
           Justice David R. Stras.
           Took no part, Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.

A12-1978       Lawrence Leiendecker, et al., Respondents, vs. Asian Women United of Minnesota, et al.,
A12-2015       Appellants.
                     Supreme Court.
           Motion for attorney fees granted.
           Justice David R. Stras.
           Took no part, Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.

  

  

 


 

Opinion Sets

Opinion sets contain all opinions and orders.  The sets are compressed into files that must be unpacked before opening them in your word processor. Follow the links and instructions below to do so. If you do not have Microsoft Word, download a free Word Viewer from Microsoft: Get Word Viewer


Click Here to Download September 10, 2014, Opinion Set in Word 2010 format (self extracting EXE file).

  1. Click the above link.
  2. Choose the "Open" option on the File Download screen.
  3. Choose the "Run WinZip" option and extract the files to a location of your choice.
  4. Open the extracted files using Microsoft Word.  


Click Here to Download September 10, 2014, Opinion Set in a Rich Text Format (self extracting EXE file).

  1. Click the above link.
  2. Choose the "Open" option on the File Download screen.
  3. Choose the "Run WinZip" option and extract the files to a location of your choice.
  4. Open the extracted files. 

Click Here to Download September 10, 2014, Opinion Set in a Zipped Rich Text Format.

  1. Click the above link.
  2. Save the unzipped file to your computer.
  3. Choose the "Open" option on the Download Complete screen.
  4. Extract the files to a location of your choice. Windows and Macintosh users can use the free Alladin Expander to decompress the ZIP file.
  5. Open the extracted file. 

 

 

 


The Adobe Reader must be used to view or print the opinions.  
Click "Get Adobe Reader" button to download Adobe Reader free of charge.