EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
November 2005
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office.
Monday, October 31, 2005, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Ronald
Peterson, et al., Respondents vs. BASF Corporation, a foreign corporation,
Appellant – Case No. C3-02-857: Respondent farmers filed a class-action
state-law consumer fraud suit against appellant BASF Corporation alleging BASF
fraudulently marketed a herbicide used by respondents. A jury found in favor of respondents. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding
that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not
preempt respondents’ state-law claims.
The United States Supreme Court granted BASF’s petition for a writ of
certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Minnesota
Supreme Court for further consideration in light of its decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 125 S.
Ct. 1788 (2005). The case is before the
court for reconsideration of FIFRA preemption in light of Bates. (On
remand from the United States Supreme Court.)
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Ardelle Hope Manthey, Appellant – Case No. A04-2468: On appeal from her conviction for
first-degree murder, appellant Ardelle Manthey presents the following issues
for review: (1) whether the state
presented prejudicial evidence that denied Manthey her right to due process and
a fair trial; (2) whether the district court erred in denying Manthey’s motion
for a mistrial based on the jury receiving information regarding Manthey’s
custody status; and (3) whether Manthey is entitled to a new trial based on her
alleged failure to be present at all stages of the trial because the trial
transcript does not indicate whether she was present when the district court
discussed a question from the jury with counsel. (On appeal from Aitkin
County District Court.)
Tuesday, November 1, 2005, 11:00
a.m., Hamline University Law
School, Moot Courtroom
Kevin Kelly, as Trustee
for the heirs and next-of-kin of Kelly Ann Kelly, et al., Appellants vs.
Jason Ellefson, Respondent, Steven Eidemiller, Defendant, Supreme Transport
Services, L.L.C., et al., Respondents, Lido Café, Inc., a/k/a Lido’s Italian Market Café & Bar,
Defendant – Case No. A04-615:
Appellant Kevin Kelly commenced a wrongful death action against
respondent Jason Ellefson, one of the drivers involved in the car crash that
resulted in the death of the decedent, and the restaurant where Ellefson had
been drinking before the accident. The
restaurant settled and Kelly’s claims against Ellefson were tried before a
jury. At trial, the district court
denied Ellefson’s request to introduce Kelly’s amended complaint and the
restaurant’s discovery disclosures as evidence of the restaurant’s liability
and refused to submit the issue of the restaurant’s comparative fault to the
jury. The jury found in favor of
Kelly. The court of appeals affirmed. The issue on appeal is whether the district
court erred in excluding the amended complaint and discovery disclosures. (On appeal from Hennepin
County District Court.)
Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc.,
Respondent vs. Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., et
al., Appellants – Case No. A04-188: Appellants, individual
attorneys and their law firm, represented respondent Jerry’s Enterprises in
litigation regarding the terms of an option agreement. Jerry’s Enterprises lost that litigation
following a remand by the supreme court for the
purpose of applying a new rule of law.
Jerry’s Enterprises then brought this legal malpractice action against
appellants. The district court granted
appellants’ motion for directed verdict.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was a question of fact
whether appellants had a duty to research and advise Jerry’s Enterprise that it
was possible the law might change and that the district court erred in applying
a “but for” standard rather than a proximate cause standard to the malpractice
claim. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether a lawyer has a duty to predict,
conduct research about, and advise a client of possible future changes in the
law; (2) whether the “but for” standard for causation applicable to litigation
malpractice applies to transactional legal malpractice; and (3) whether the
district court erred in admitting opinion testimony about the status of the
point of law on which the underlying case was decided. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
NONORAL:
Kmart Corporation, Relator vs. County of Clay, Respondent – A05-590: Relator Kmart Corporation
attempted to serve a property tax petition challenging its 2003 tax assessment
in Clay County by serving the Clay County
Treasurer. The process server personally
delivered the petition and two other petitions to the Treasurer at 4:15 p.m. on
the last day of the filing period. The
Treasurer reviewed the documents and then refused to sign the acknowledgments
of service because it was 4:33 p.m. and her office closed at 4:30 p.m. As a result of the delay, the processor
server was unable to serve the county attorney or the county assessor, and was
unable to file the documents with the court.
The process server then attempted to serve the petitions by facsimile on
the county attorney, auditor, and treasurer.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition on the ground of untimely
service. The issues raised by Kmart on
appeal are: (1) whether the Tax
Court erred in holding that service by facsimile did not satisfy the service
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2004); (2) whether the Tax Court erred in
holding that Kmart was required to personally serve the county attorney and
county assessor and that Kmart failed to do so; and (3) whether the Tax Court
erred in concluding that the county officials did not hinder Kmart’s effort to
comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 278.01. (On appeal from the Tax
Court.)
NONORAL:
American Crystal Sugar Company, Relator vs. County of Clay, Respondent – Case No. A05-591: Relator American Crystal Sugar Company (ACS) attempted to serve a
property tax petition challenging its 2003 tax assessment in Clay County
by serving the Clay County Treasurer.
The process server personally delivered the petition and two other
petitions to the Treasurer at 4:15 p.m. on the last day of the filing
period. The Treasurer reviewed the
documents for several minutes. She then
refused to sign the acknowledgments of service because it was 4:33 p.m. and her
office closed at 4:30 p.m. As a result
of the delay, the processor server was unable to serve the county attorney or
the county assessor, and was unable to file the documents with the court. The process server then attempted to serve
the petitions by facsimile on the county attorney, assessor and treasurer. The Tax Court dismissed the petition on the
ground of untimely service. The issues
raised by ACS on appeal are: (1) whether
the service of petitions conformed with the
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2004); and (2) if not, whether ACS failure
to timely serve the petition should be excused based on the conduct of county
officials. (On appeal
from the Tax Court.)
Thursday, November 3, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Brian Todd
Pierce, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 290038 – Case No.
A05-847: Attorney discipline matter that presents the
issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Anthony Osborne,
Sr., Respondent – Case No. C1-03-253:
Respondent Anthony Osborne appealed a sentence of 225 months for
importing a controlled substance across state lines on the ground the record
did not establish aggravating factors to support the 67-month durational
departure. The court of appeals
affirmed. This court remanded to the
court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004), which held that any fact that increases the severity of a sentence
beyond the presumptive sentence must be determined by a jury. On remand, the court of appeals reversed
Osborne’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether Osborne waived his claim to have
a jury determine all facts relevant to the imposition of a durational departure
by failing to raise the issue in district court; and (2) whether the jury
necessarily found aggravating factors sufficient to support an upward
durational departure in finding Osborne guilty on 28 counts related to his
participation in the sale of controlled substances and conspiracy to commit
controlled substance crime. (On appeal from Olmsted County District Court.)
NONORAL: Darby Jon
Opsahl, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No.
A04-1992: On remand from the supreme
court for an evidentiary hearing on appellant Darby Opsahl’s petition
for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, the
district court denied the petition following a hearing. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether Opsahl is entitled to a new trial
based on the recantation of testimony by witnesses; (2) whether Opsahl is
entitled to a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the
postconviction proceeding; and (3) whether Opsahl
is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice. (On appeal from McLeod
County District Court.)
Monday, November 7, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Brian Keith Edwards,
Appellant – Case No. A04-2396: On appeal from his conviction for
first-degree murder, appellant Brian Edwards presents the following issues for
review: (1) whether the district court
erred in instructing the jury on an aggressor’s right to self defense over
Edwards’ objection; and (2) whether the district court erred in allowing
testimony from the state’s expert that implied the expert had concluded that
Edwards rather than the victim had fired his gun first. (On appeal from Hennepin
County District Court.)
NONORAL: William J.
McDonough, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No.
A05-500: On appeal from the denial of his petition for
postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant
William McDonough presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in its
instructions to the jury and its responses to questions from the jury; (2)
whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct warranting a new trial; (3)
whether the district court had jurisdiction to try McDonough for first-degree
murder; (4) whether McDonough’s right to a speedy trial was violated; and (5)
whether McDonough received ineffective assistance of counsel. (On appeal from Ramsey
County District Court.)
Tuesday, November 8, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Anthony Phillip Scacchetti, Appellant – Case No. A03-301: On
remand from the Minnesota Supreme Court on appellant Anthony Scacchetti’s appeal
from his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, third-degree
assault, and malicious punishment of a child, the court of appeals held that
the statements of the three-year-old victim made during a medical examination
were admissible under Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and affirmed the convictions. The issue on appeal is whether the admission
of the victim’s statements violated the Crawford
rule barring the admission of testimonial hearsay statements if the
declarant is not subject to cross-examination.
(On appeal from Crow Wing County District Court.)
NONORAL: Juan P.
Gonzalez, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A05-815: The
Tax Court affirmed an order of respondent Commissioner of Revenue determining
that relator Juan P. Gonzales owed more than $13,000
in income taxes, interest, and penalties for the years 1996 through 2002. On appeal, Gonzales asserts that because
federal tax law does not require a taxpayer to file a state income tax return,
he cannot be required to file a Minnesota
income tax return and does not owe any Minnesota
income tax. (On appeal
from the Tax Court.)
NONORAL: Mwati P.
McKenzie, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No.
A05-629: On appeal from the denial of his petition for
postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant
Mwati McKenzie presents the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in
denying McKenzie’s petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary
hearing; (2) whether McKenzie is entitled to a new trial based on the
racial composition of the grand jury that indicted him for first-degree murder;
and (3) whether McKenzie is entitled to a new trial based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)