Supreme Court Opinions


IMPORTANT NOTICE

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.
 

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED OPINIONS

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.


OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, February 28, 2024

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.


A22-1277   State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sheldon James Thompson, Appellant.
                    Carlton County.
          1. Because the State has met its burden to show that appellant’s substantial rights were not affected by any plain error alleged to have occurred in the prosecutor’s closing argument, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial.
          2. Appellant has not shown that speculative statements are a rampant form of prosecutorial misconduct and therefore a prophylactic reversal under our supervisory power is not warranted.
          Affirmed. Justice Margaret H. Chutich.

A22-0654   In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.F.-D., Child.
                    Court of Appeals
          Rule 20.01, subdivision 7(A) of the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Delinquency
Procedure permits the State, within 1 year of a juvenile court’s finding of incompetency, to file a notice of intention to prosecute a child when the child has been restored to competency. A notice has the effect of extending the suspension of proceedings for 1 year, provided that the child does not age out of juvenile jurisdiction during the suspension. So long as the juvenile court continues to make findings of incompetency, the State may file attendant, timely notices of intention to prosecute, thereby extending the suspension of delinquency proceedings until the child ages out of juvenile jurisdiction.
          Affirmed. Justice Margaret H. Chutich.

A23-0008   In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Fong E. Lee, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0387546.
          Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who misappropriates client funds. 
          Disbarred. Per Curiam.

ORDER
 
A23-1828   In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Paul E. Overson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0195005.
                    Supreme Court.
          Suspended. Justice Margaret H. Chutich.
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.

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

FILED Wednesday, February 28, 2024


(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

Granted
 
1.         Deborah Jane Clapp vs. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim    Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, et al. – A23-0360
 
Issues Granted: (1) Did the court of appeals err by holding that merely alleging that a governmental entity will utilize public funds to implement the terms of a collective bargaining agreement meets the requirements of a specific and unlawful disbursement of public funds for purposes of the taxpayer-standing doctrine, as required under McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977) and its progeny?  (2) Did the court of appeals err in concluding that there is no requirement for ripeness because the respondent sought declaratory judgment related to a contract to which respondent is not even a party?
 
2.         State of Minnesota vs. Korwin Lucio Balsley – A23-0133
 
            Issue Granted: Does Balsley’s 2017 conviction for assault in the second degree qualify as a “previously committed” predatory crime for the purposes of enhancing Balsley’s sentence under the engrained-offender statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 3a(a)(2), when the conviction was out of sequence from the current conviction – a delayed report case where the charged offense allegedly occurred in 2015? 
 
 
Granted/Stayed
 
3.         Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation, et al. vs. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice County Property and Tax Elections, Minnesota  Secretary of State Steve Simon – A23-0302
 
Issue: Whether a petitioner under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a)(4) (2022) must serve all candidates running for office at the commencement of the action?
 
            Stayed Pending Final Disposition in Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services,     No. A22-1420.
 
 
4.         State of Minnesota vs. Jeremiah John Dahl – A22-1255
 
Issue: Because decades of well-established precedent instructs that venue is an element of the charged offense the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, where a defendant opts for a court trial and the district court does not find the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged crime occurred in the county in which the case was tried, must the defendant’s conviction be reversed?
 
Cross-Review Issue: Whether venue is an essential element of every offense, such that the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charged offense was committed in the county where the case is being tried?
 
            Both Petitions Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Paulson, A22-0632.
 
 
5.         Thomas Patrick Ness vs. Commissioner of Public Safety – A23-0831
 
Issue: Whether law enforcement’s failure to follow statutory requirements while informing petitioner that “refusing to submit to that search warrant is a crime,” as required by Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, should have resulted in rescission of the revocation as the officer did not follow the statute and did not direct either a blood or a urine test before revoking petitioner’s driving privileges.
 
 
            Stayed Pending Final Disposition in Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No.   A22-1238.
 
 
Denied
 
6.      In the Matter of: Ellen Sue Laas Ewald, et al. vs. Nina Laas Ewald Nedrebo – A23-0331
7.      In re Joseph Rued, In re the Marriage of Catrina M Rued vs. Joseph D Rued and In the Matter of Joseph Daryll Rued on behalf of minor child vs.
         Catrina Marie Rued on behalf of minor child – A23-1754
8.      Raymond Kvalvog vs. Christopher Nellermoe – A23-1781
9.      State of Minnesota vs. Daniel James Lewison – A22-1807
10.    State of Minnesota vs. Jack Guy – A22-1555
11.    State of Minnesota vs. Juan Eduardo Rodriguez Morales – A22-0350
12.    State of Minnesota vs. Keevin Lashawn Hinton – A22-1772
13.    State of Minnesota vs. Rolmando Walker – A22-1734
14.    State of Minnesota vs. Samuel James Lyons – A22-1744
15.    State of Minnesota vs. Stacey Kay Johnson –A22-1752
16.    State of Minnesota vs. Terry Allen Stewart – A23-0188