EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the
December 2006
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, November 27, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline plc – Case No. A04-2150:
Appellant GlaxoSmithKline plc appeals from a decision of the court of
appeals overturning a district court order that denied the state’s request to
release to the public certain documents produced by appellant, subject to a
confidentiality agreement, in response to the state’s civil investigative
demand. At issue are: (1) whether by attaching the documents
to its civil complaint against appellant, the state has made the documents
“judicial records” that are presumed to be available to the public; (2) whether
release of the documents would inhibit the associational privacy rights and
political expression of appellant and of amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America; and (3) whether the confidentiality
protections of the “pending investigations” clause of the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2 (2004),
apply to documents after a civil suit has been filed but before the documents themselves
are introduced into evidence. (
State of
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Frank Edward Johnson, Respondent vs. Joan Fabian, Commissioner of
Corrections, et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-2498 AND State of Minnesota, ex rel. John William Henderson, Appellant vs.
Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent –
Case No. A06-439: In each of these cases, on appeal from
denials of writs of habeas corpus and consolidated for argument, the
Commissioner of Corrections extended the individual’s presumptive supervised
release date as a sanction for the individual’s refusal to participate in sex
offender treatment. At issue in each
case is whether the extension of the release date violated the individual’s Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because participation in sex
offender treatment would have required the individual to admit his offenses. Also at issue is whether the Fifth Amendment
privilege survives the conclusion of a direct appeal. (
State of
Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Charles J. Bendorf,
Appellant vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent – Case No. A05-1484: Appellant Charles Bendorf
appeals from the revocation of his driver’s license under
State of
Thursday, November 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Nancy SooHoo, petitioner, Respondent vs. Marilyn Johnson,
Appellant – Case No. A05-537:
Appellant Marilyn Johnson appeals from a court of appeals opinion
affirming the district court’s award of visitation by respondent Nancy SooHoo, her former domestic partner, with appellant’s two
adopted children. At issue are: (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 257C.08,
subd. 4 (2004) (authorizing the district
court to grant visitation rights to a person with whom the minor child has resided
for at least two years) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not
allow a fit parent to control visitation between his or her children and third
parties; (2) whether the district court applied section 257C.08, subd. 4, in an unconstitutional manner in this case; (3) whether
in awarding visitation to respondent, the district court abused its discretion;
(4) whether the district court should have conducted an evidentiary
hearing before promulgating a visitation schedule; and (5) whether the
district court had jurisdiction to order appellant and the children to
participate in counseling or therapy. (
State of
Monday, December 4, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300,
Brown-Wilbert, Inc., et al., Appellants (A05-340), Respondents
(A05-1952) vs. Copeland Buhl & Company, P.L.L.P., et al., Respondents
(A05-340), Appellants (A05-1952): These appeals are
consolidated for argument. In Case No. A05-340, Brown-Wilbert, Inc., and
Christopher Brown appeal from the dismissal of their claims of professional
malpractice against Copeland Buhl & Company, P.L.L.P, and Lee Harren. At issue
are: (1) what constitutes a demand
for the affidavit of expert review required by Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subd. 2 (2004); and (2) the minimum standard
for an affidavit of expert identification required by Minn. Stat. § 544.42,
subd. 4 (2004), sufficient to entitle the
plaintiff to notice of the affidavit’s deficiencies and the opportunity to cure
those deficiencies provided by Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subd. 6 (2004). In Case No. A05-1952,
Copeland Buhl and Lee Harren appeal from the
reinstatement of a second lawsuit brought against them by respondents Brown-Wilbert
and Christopher Brown after respondents’ first lawsuit was dismissed. At issue in this second appeal is whether a
judgment of dismissal is final, for purposes of res judicata
and collateral estoppel, even though the matter is on
appeal. (
Connie C. Reider,
Respondent vs.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300,
State of
Juvon De Wilson, Appellant vs. State of