EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
October 2005
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office.
Monday, October 3, 2005, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Beth
Ann Hinneberg, Appellant vs. Big Stone County Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, Respondent – Case No. A04-435: After receiving a Section 8 housing
voucher from respondent Big Stone County Housing & Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), appellant Beth Hinneberg requested an exemption, as a reasonable
accommodation of her disability, from the policy of HRA that limits, for one
year, the use of a Section 8 housing voucher by a person who was not previously
a resident of the county to housing within the county. The HRA denied the request and the denial was
affirmed on an administrative appeal.
The court of appeals, on certiorari review, affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988 apply to a Section 8 housing voucher program operated by a housing
agency; and (2) whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a public
housing authority to grant, as a reasonable accommodation, an exception to a
policy of requiring non‑residents to use the voucher within its jurisdiction
for one year. (On
appeal from Big Stone County Housing and Redevelopment Authority.)
Zurich
American Insurance Company, Respondent vs. Donald A. Bjelland, Appellant – Case
No. A04-709: Respondent Zurich
American Insurance Company (Zurich) commenced a subrogation action seeking to
recover from appellant Donald Bjelland workers’ compensation benefits it paid
to the surviving spouse of an insured’s employee who was killed in an
automobile accident with Bjelland. On
cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that amendments to
the Workers’ Compensation Act did not automatically set the measure of damages
in a subrogation action as the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid
and payable and that Zurich’s
recovery is limited to the actual damages of the surviving spouse. The court of appeals reversed, holding that
the measure of recovery in a workers’ compensation subrogation action is the
full amount of benefits paid and payable to the employee regardless of whether
actual damages incurred by the employee were less. The issue on appeal is whether the 2000
amendments to Minn. Stat. § 176.061 (2004) of the Workers’ Compensation Act
permit an insurer to recover the full amount of benefits paid or payable
without having to prove the extent of the damages actually incurred by the
employee. (On appeal
from Kanabec County District Court.)
Tuesday, October 4, 2002, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
State of Minnesota, Respondent
vs. Joshua Stafford Bertsch, Appellant – Case No. A04-177: Appellant Joshua Bertsch was convicted on 19
counts of possession of child pornography and one count of dissemination of
child pornography under a plea agreement that provided that sentencing would be
within the discretion of the district court.
The district court imposed a sentence for each conviction, resulting in
a total sentence of 78 months. The court
of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether Bertsch is entitled to vacation
of the convictions for possession of child pornography on the ground that the
possession offenses are lesser-included offenses of the conviction for
dissemination of child pornography; (2) whether the offenses were part of the
same behavioral incident such that the imposition of multiple sentences is not
permitted; (3) whether the district court erred in its assignment of severity
level VIII to the dissemination offense and severity levels IV and V to the
possession offenses for purposes of determining the presumptive sentence; and
(4) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Bertsch’s
request for a downward dispositional departure based on its finding that
Bertsch is not amenable to probation. (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)
State of Minnesota,
Appellant vs. Orlando
Manuel Bobadilla, Respondent – Case No. A03-1891: Appellant
Orlando Bobadilla was charged with first- and second-degree criminal sexual
conduct. The district court ruled that
the three-year-old complainant was not competent to testify and granted the
state’s motion to admit a videotape of the complainant’s interview with a child
protection worker. Bobadilla was
convicted on both counts. On appeal, the
court of appeals held that the admission of the videotape violated Bobadilla’s
constitutional right to confrontation under Crawford
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The issue on appeal is whether the
complainant’s statements to the child protection worker were testimonial and
therefore the videotape of the interview was not admissible under Crawford. (On appeal from Kandiyohi
County District Court.)
Wednesday, October 5, 2002, 9:30
a.m., Grand Rapids
High School
Geralyn
S. Engler, Appellant vs. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, an Illinois
corporation, Respondent – Case No. A04-1445: Appellant Geralyn Engler commenced an
underinsured motorist suit against her insurer seeking to recover damages for
the emotional distress she suffered after witnessing her son being struck by a
car that drove off the road toward her and her son. The district court ruled that Engler’s
recovery for emotional distress was limited to the damages suffered as a result
of her fear for her own safety and that she could not recover damages for emotional
distress suffered as a result of witnessing her son being hit. The court of appeals affirmed. The issue on appeal is whether a person in
the zone of danger may recover damages for emotional distress suffered as a
result of witnessing another person being injured. (On appeal from Anoka
County District Court.)
Thursday, October 6, 2005, 10:00 a.m.,
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
NOTE: By order dated October 4, 2005, oral argument
in State v. Osborne, Case No.
C1-03-253, scheduled for October 6, 2005, has been canceled and will be
rescheduled at a later date. Oral argument in Cooperative
Power Association v. Lundell, Case No.
A04-1045, will begin at 10:00 a.m.
Cooperative Power Association, A
Minnesota cooperative corporation, Respondent vs. Danny O. Lundell, et al.,
Appellants – Case No. A04-1045: Respondent Cooperative Power Association
(CPA), which has statutory condemnation authority, filed a quick-take
condemnation action against appellants Danny and Mary Lundell seeking to take
property CPA was currently leasing from the Lundells on which CPA had constructed
a telecommunications tower. CPA filed
its action after the parties were unsuccessful in renegotiating the terms of
the current lease that could be extended, at CPA’s option, until 2030. The district court held that the taking was
necessary and for a public purpose and granted the condemnation petition and
CPA’s quick-take request for immediate possession. The court of appeals affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in
finding the taking is necessary and serves a public purpose; (2) whether the
district court erred in failing to require CPA to establish “good cause” to
take property on which it currently held a leasehold interest; (3) whether the
district court erred in failing to consider whether CPA acted in bad faith and,
if so, whether this negated the necessity or public purpose of the taking; and
(4) whether the district court erred in finding that CPA had established the
necessity of a “quick take” of the property for immediate possession. (On appeal from Goodhue
County District Court.)
Monday, October 10, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
Minnesota Voyageur Houseboats, Inc., Respondent vs. Las
Vegas Marine Supply, Inc., a Nevada corporation, et al., Appellants, Northern National
Bank, n/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, Respondent – Case No. A04-866:
Appellant Las Vegas Marine Supply obtained a default judgment against
respondent debtor Minnesota Voyageur Houseboats in 1997. Before judgment was entered, the debtor
borrowed money from respondent Northern National Bank secured by certain assets
of the debtor under the terms of a promissory note that permitted the bank to
enforce a right to a setoff in the event of a default, which was defined to
include the entry or service of any garnishment against any of debtor’s
property. After Las Vegas Marine served
a garnishment notice on the bank to garnish debtor’s bank account, the bank
removed the entire balance in the account, $40,700, and applied it to the loan
as a setoff. Las Vegas Marine then
commenced suit challenging the bank’s setoff.
The district court granted Las Vegas Marine summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding
that the bank was not required to declare the entire indebtedness immediately
due and owing in order to exercise its rights under the note’s provision
permitting a setoff in the event of a default.
The issue on appeal is whether the bank was entitled to exercise its
rights under the default provision in the note where the default was technical,
without first accelerating the note. (On appeal from St. Louis County District Court.)
NONORAL: Leon
Perry, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-169: On
appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his
conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Leon Perry presents the following
issues for review: (1) whether Perry was
denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to object to
allegedly inconsistent verdicts; and (2) whether Perry’s equal protection claim
based on the racial composition of the grand jury is procedurally barred on the
ground it was raised on direct appeal. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
NONORAL: Kmart
Corporation, Relator vs. County
of Stearns,
Respondent – Case No. A05-442: Relator Kmart Corporation
challenged respondent Stearns
County’s 2000, 2001, and
2002 tax valuations of one of Kmart’s stores.
The county moved to dismiss based on Kmart’s failure to provide all
required information within 60 days as required by Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (2004). The Tax
Court granted the motion. The issues on
appeal are: (1) whether the Tax Court
erred in finding that Kmart failed to produce all required information under
Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a); and (2) whether the Tax
Court’s interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) renders the
statute unconstitutionally vague. (On appeal from the Tax Court.)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 9:00 a.m.,
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
Citizens Advocating Responsible Development, et al.,
Appellants vs. Kandiyohi
County Board of
Commissioners, Respondent, Duininck Bros., Inc., Respondent
– Case Nos. A04-886 and A04-890: Appellants, Citizens Advocating
Responsibility Development and property owners, commenced a declaratory
judgment action challenging respondent Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioner’s
decision not to require an environmental impact statement (EIS) for proposed
gravel pits. The district court granted
appellants summary judgment and ordered an EIS.
The court of appeals reversed.
The issues on appeal are: (1)
whether the board should have considered the cumulative effect of existing
gravel pits and the project in determining whether an EIS was required; and (2)
whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the board’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence. (On appeal from Kandiyohi County District Court.)
NONORAL: James L.
Wilson, Relator vs. Commissioner of
Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A05-440: After a series of appeals to the
supreme court that resulted in a remand to the Tax Court, relator James L.
Wilson and respondent Commissioner of Revenue entered into a settlement
agreement resolving the dispute between the parties regarding the
commissioner’s attempt to impose a penalty on Wilson for his alleged failure to
honor the commissioner’s wage levy on an employee of a corporation owned by
Wilson. The parties agreed that Wilson owed nothing further to the commissioner and that
the commissioner owed no refund to Wilson. Wilson
then moved the Tax Court for attorney fees as the prevailing party in the
litigation, which the Tax Court denied.
The issue on appeal is whether the Tax Court erred in concluding that
Wilson is not a prevailing party entitled to recover attorney fees under Minn.
Stat. § 15.472 (2004), which permits a prevailing party in a civil action
brought by or against the state to recover attorney fees. (On appeal from the Tax
Court.)
NONORAL: Brad Alan
Voorhees, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-27: On
appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his
conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Brad Voorhees presents the
following issue for review: whether the
district court erred in denying the petition without an evidentiary
hearing. (On appeal
from St. Louis County District Court.)