ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW
FILED Tuesday, January 21, 2025
(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)
(Petitioners Indicated in
Italic Type)
POSTED THURSDAY AFTER SPECIAL TERM CONFERENCE
(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)
1. In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack’s Request to Amend its Plan of
Operation – A23-1738
Issues Granted: (1) Are ETGs [electronic table games] “gambling devices” or “video games of chance” that cannot be operated at card clubs? (2) Did the court err by allowing the Commission to expand the number of card tables at card clubs beyond the limits set by the legislature? (3) Did the Commission unlawfully approve ETGs through an unpromulgated rule?
Cross-Review Issue Granted: Whether SMSC [Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community] has standing for a
certiorari challenge to its competitor’s license.
2.
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General vs. Madison Equities, Inc. – A24-0107
Issues Granted: (1) Whether the limitation period applicable to the AGO’ s wage theft claim was tolled during the pendency of the CID Litigation, which had to be resolved before the AGO could satisfy itself that bringing an enforcement action was warranted? (2) Whether recovery of remedies uniquely available to the AGO for wage theft violations are subject to a six-year limitation period?
3. State of Minnesota vs.
Jamie Sara Schmeichel – A23-1905
Issues Granted: (1) To prove a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169A.20, subdivision 2, must the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process? (2) If, in a refusal prosecution, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s actual unwillingness to participate in the testing process, did the district court commit reversible error by declining to instruct the jury accordingly?
Denied
4. Absolute Sports Cards, LLC vs.
Matthew Thornton – A24-0215
5.
Angeleah Joy Brandt vs. Garrett James Brandt, et al. – A23-1902
6.
Benjamin Unke, et al. vs. Michael Braun, et al., Neil Constine, et al. – A24-0389
7.
Chad Alan Hoflock vs. State of Minnesota – A24-0185
8. Galen Tronnes vs.
Valerie Tronnes, Vickie Mjelde, Angie Rhoads – A24-0432
9. In re Sina Roughani, State of Minnesota vs.
Sina Roughani (Accelerated Review)– A24-2042
10. In re the Marriage of: Jessica Suzanne Cross vs.
Joseph Drew Cross – A24-0290
11. In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota – A23-0867, A23-0871,
A23-1957
12. In the Matter of the Application for Water Appropriation Permit No. 1984-6141 – A24-1121
13. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kaleb Wolfe Smith – A24-1386
14. In the Matter of: Juneau Pearletha Thomas vs.
Andre Lamont Johnson – A24-0908
15. Oehlerts & Sons Construction vs.
Thomas A.Baustian – A23-1941
16.
Phouminh Kullavongsa vs. Jeramiah David Krebsbach – A24-1576
17. State of Minnesota vs.
Aaron Joseph Shea – A23-1523
18. State of Minnesota vs.
Andre Leon Franklin – A23-1664
19. State of Minnesota vs.
Andy Joseph Hedlund – A23-1983
20. State of Minnesota vs.
Clinton Albert Christopher Juring – A23-1904
21. State of Minnesota vs.
Dustin Brock Metcalfe – A23-1292
22. State of Minnesota vs.
Edin Gaspar Cruz Flores AKA Marcelino Rivera Rodriguez – A23-1760
23. State of Minnesota vs.
Gregory Ivan Shines, Jr. – A23-1794
24. State of Minnesota vs.
Jermaine La Johnson, Sr. – A23-1929
25. State of Minnesota vs.
Kwadwo Adu Twum – A22-1564
26.
State of Minnesota vs. Manuel Richard Buck – A23-1600
27. State of Minnesota vs.
Nathan Christopher Braun – A23-1967
28. State of Minnesota vs.
Ramon Roosevelt Blakey – A23-1200
29. State of Minnesota vs
. Russell James Bankey – A23-1897
30. State of Minnesota vs.
Ava Thadette Smith – A23-1713
31.
Tal Sarusi individually and d/b/a Sealed Envelope LLC, et al. vs. Todd Laughlin individually and d/b/a LB Spray Foam, LLC, et al. – A23-1730
Granted – Filed January 2, 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.D. and
D.A.A., Parents. – A24-1673
Issues Granted: (1) Does appellant have standing to file and should he have an opportunity to be heard for his Rule 56.03 motion to withdraw admission which is guaranteed by the rules of this Court “at any time upon a showing of manifest injustice”? (2) Does Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 21 supersede the clear language of Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 56.03 which allows it to be filed at any time upon a showing of manifest injustice? (3) Should this issue be remanded to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to address the merits of the appellant’s claim that a manifest injustice has occurred?