Supreme Court Opinions


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 the Clerk of Appellate Courts page for instructions how to register your e-mail address.


Please visit the Minnesota State Law Library's Appellate Opinions Archive for previously published Supreme Court Opinions.

NOTE: If you are having trouble accessing the tabs on your mobile device, you may view all Opinions and Orders on a single page.


FILED Wednesday, May 15, 2024


A21-0626        Drake Snell, et al., Appellants, vs. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, in his official capacity, et al., Respondents.
                         Court of Appeals.
          1. The scope of the issues preserved for consideration here, under an exception to the mootness doctrine, permits the review of whether the Emergency Management Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 12.01–.61 (2022), can, in the abstract, authorize a sitting governor to declare a peacetime emergency for a pandemic, whether Governor Walz was specifically authorized to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether the Act as a whole violates the nondelegation doctrine.
          2. The Emergency Management Act authorizes the declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to a pandemic and did not require the Governor to make an evidentiary showing that the Act’s requirements were satisfied before declaring a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
          3. The Emergency Management Act does not provide for an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Minnesota Constitution.
          Affirmed. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
          Concurring, Justice G. Barry Anderson.
          Took no part, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
A22-1376        Judith Rygwall, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall, deceased, Appellant, vs. ACR Homes, Inc. d/b/a ACR Homes,
                        Court of Appeals.
          1. Minnesota Statutes section 145.682 (2022) did not modify the common-law standard for causation in medical malpractice cases to require plaintiffs to satisfy a more stringent burden of proof to establish causation than is required in other negligence cases.
          2. A genuine issue of material fact over whether a health care provider caused injury to the decedent in a medical malpractice claim precluded summary judgment.
          Reversed and remanded. Justice Paul C. Thissen.
          Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice G. Barry Anderson, Chief Justice
          Natalie E. Hudson.
A24-0216        Ken Martin, Petitioner, vs. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent, The Legal Marijuana Now Party, Intervenor-
                        Original Jurisdiction.
          1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2022).
          2. Because the Legal Marijuana Now Party (LMNP) did not maintain a state central committee subject to the state convention’s control, as Minn. Stat. § 202A.12, subd. 2 (2022), requires, and the LMNP’s constitutional challenge to Minn. Stat. § 202A.12, subd. 2, fails, the LMNP has not satisfied the requirements to be a major political party under Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 7(a) (Supp. 2023).
          Petition granted; motion to dismiss denied. Per Curiam.
          Took no part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
Opinion SetsAs of June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court no longer provides opinion sets in Word Document format and Rich Text Format. Opinions are available in PDF format under the Opinions tab on this site.

Opinion Set in a Zipped PDF 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.
  5. Open the extracted file.


FILED Tuesday, May 14, 2024

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)
1.         Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., vs. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research  Action Council, et al., HOME Line – A23-0191
Issues Granted: (1) Did the court misapply Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021), in which the United States Supreme Court held that an appropriation of private property for the use of others, even through a regulation, is a physical taking?  (2) Did the court misapply Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), by determining Petitioners’ claim was a facial challenge and Petitioners needed to demonstrate the ordinance effects a taking in all applications?  (3) Did the court err in holding that the City’s civil rights ordinance, which requires participation in the HCV program by redefining discrimination, is not preempted by state law?
2.         Great Northwest Insurance Company vs. Hector A. Campbell, Betty L. Campbell   – A23-0519
Issue Granted: When a storm damages the shingles but not the decking of an insured’s roof, does Minn. Stat. § 65A.10 require an insurer to cover the cost of bringing the decking up to code even when the relevant insurance policy plainly excludes coverage for the decking?
Cross-Review Issue Granted:  Whether the scope of repair mandated by Minn. Stat. § 65A.10 can be negated by an insurance policy exclusion for overhead and profit.
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte – A23-0158
Issues Granted: (1) The indecent-exposure statute criminalizes lewd exposure of a person’s “private parts.”  Are “female breasts” “private parts” within the statute’s meaning?  (2) The evidence proved that Plancarte had her breasts uncovered while walking in a gas station parking lot.  Was this evidence sufficient to prove that she “lewdly” exposed her breasts in violation of the indecent-exposure statute?  (3) Men are freely permitted to expose their breasts in gas station parking lots in Minnesota with no fear of prosecution.  Yet Plancarte was prosecuted and jailed for that same conduct because she is not a man.  Did the prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of Plancarte for an act which men are permitted to do violate the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the law?
4.      State of Minnesota vs. Reginald Scott Hubbard – A23-0362
Issues: (1) Did the district court commit reversible error by denying Hubbard’s request that the jury be instructed on self-defense?  (2) Did the district court deprive Hubbard of his right to present a complete defense and to testify on his own behalf when it limited his testimony on relevance grounds, but the record establishes both that the evidence was relevant and that the lack of testimony on the relevant issue contributed to the district court’s later denial of a self-defense instruction? 
         Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Baker, No. A22-1283.
5.          Brandon Maurice Baker vs. State of Minnesota – A23-0958
6.          Bren Road LLC vs. Talon OP, LP, et al., Kris Wyrobek – A23-0248, A23-0268
7.          Clear Cut Xteriors LLC vs. Amarjit Singh – A23-1724
8.          In re Anderson Price, Anderson Price vs. Real Estate Equities Management LLC/Brooklyn Center AH II LLLP, et al. – A24-0410
9.          In re Sharon Joy Compton, State of Minnesota vs. Sharon Joy Compton – A24-0173
10.        In re the Matter of: Darrell Perry, et al. vs. Carrie Ann Swatlowski – A22-1663
11.        In the Matter of Kathryn Marie Larson On Behalf of Minor Child vs. Keith Norman Marohn – A23-0761, A23-0893
12.        In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Cody Johnson a/k/a Natasha Johnson (“Tasha”) – A23-1506
13.        In the Matter of the Welfare of J.J.B., Child – A23-0903
14.        Keegan James Rich Brouillette vs. State of Minnesota – A23-0948
15.        Maikijah HaKeem vs. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of DHS, et al. – A23-1193
16.        Newland Derrick Hambrick vs. State of Minnesota – A23-0925
17.        State of Minnesota vs. Damarcus Deontay Holloway – A23-0488
18.        State of Minnesota vs. Elvis Joko Porte – A23-0392
19.        State of Minnesota vs. Emerson Alexander Gonzalez-Rivas – A23-0551
20.        State of Minnesota vs. Jacob Richard Lindekugel – A22-1296
21.        State of Minnesota vs. Shane Ryan Oneil – A23-0011
22.        The State of Minnesota vs. Leonard Barnell Batiste – A23-1253
23.        Thomas Patrick Ness vs. Commissioner of Public Safety – A23-0831