and other court applications will be under maintenance from 6:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2024. You may experience intermittent outages during this time. If you are unable to access a website or service, please wait 15 minutes and try again.

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.




FILED Wednesday, June 12, 2024


A22-1372   McKinley Juner Phillips, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                    Washington County.
          The appellant was not prejudiced by the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter because the jury was presented with instructions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder and found the appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.
          Affirmed. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
          Concurring, Justice Margaret H. Chutich, Justice Anne K. McKeig, Justice Gordon L. Moore, III, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
          Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.

A22-1826  Tokvan Ly, Respondent, vs. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services, Appellant.
                   Court of Appeals.
          1. An appeal is not moot where there remains a live controversy as to a part of the order on appeal or, alternatively, where a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal may afford some relief to the appellant.
          2. The independent, extra-statutory basis for appeal of an order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus before entry of final judgment as a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding, which was first recognized in State ex rel. Matthews v. Webber, 17 N.W. 339 (Minn. 1883), has been extinguished by amendment to Rule 103.03(g) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure; an order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus is also not appealable under Rule 103.03(a) of those rules as an “irregular judgment,” and our prior reliance on such a legal fiction, beginning in State ex rel. Mortenson v. Copeland, 77 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1898), is disclaimed and overruled.
          3. Under the supreme court’s inherent authority and Rule 102 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, the supreme court has the authority to suspend the final judgment requirement under Rule 103.03(a) of those rules, exercise jurisdiction over an otherwise defective appeal, and remand to the court of appeals to consider the merits of the appeal.
          Reversed and remanded. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
          Took no part, Justice Karl C. Procaccini, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.

A21-1642   State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla, Appellant.
A23-0628   Washington County.
          1. The district court did not commit reversible error when it concluded that an application for a warrant to search appellant’s Facebook accounts provided the issuing judge with a substantial basis for determining that there was a fair probability that evidence of the alleged crimes would be found on those accounts.
          2. Given the circumstances of the case, the nature of the crimes under investigation, and the difficulty of articulating a more precise description of the evidence sought, the district court did not commit reversible error when it determined that the warrant satisfied minimal constitutional requirements for particularity.
          3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief.
          Affirmed. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
          Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.

A22-1010   In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against James V. Bradley, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0392102.
                   Supreme Court.
          Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who misappropriates client funds, commits fraud on the court, neglects—and ultimately abandons—his role as a court-appointed parenting consultant, fails to maintain trust account books and records, and fails to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
          Disbarred. Per Curiam.
          Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.

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

Opinion Sets

Opinion sets contain all opinions and orders. The sets are compressed into files that must be unpacked before opening them.

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 Wednesday, May 29, 2024

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)
1.         State of Minnesota vs. Christopher Lee Manska – A23-0010
Issue Granted:  Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 2(3) provides that a defendant is entitled to disclosure of any relevant evidence, within the state’s possession or control, provided that a showing is made that the information sought may relate to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.  Were the lower courts’ rulings in direct conflict with settled precedent by conditioning disclosure of relevant evidence on the defendant’s ability to prove that the evidence sought would be favorable to his case?
2.         State of Minnesota vs. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino – A23-0590
Issue Granted:  The domestic-assault statute criminalizes an assault against “a family or household member.”  “A family or household member” includes persons “involved in” a significant romantic or sexual relationship on the offense date.  Does “involved in” such a relationship include persons who are no longer in the relationship when any assault occurs?
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Ivan Contreras-Sanchez – A22-1579
Issues Granted:  (1) Are geofence warrants categorically prohibited as general warrants under the United States and/or Minnesota Constitutions?  (2) If geofence warrants are not categorically prohibited, did this geofence warrant establish probable cause to search the data of users who were merely present within the geofence boundary?  (3) Was this geofence warrant insufficiently particular and overbroad where the warrant allowed the seizure of all users’ data over seven days in a location that encompassed a public road and where the warrant gave police unchecked discretion to determine which devices to target?
4.      (ASBESTOS) Allen Lorenz, et al. vs. 3M Company, et al., Defendants, Great River Energy, et al. – A24-0231
5.      Anthony, Inc. vs. Richard L. Morris, et al.– A23-0368
6.      Deontray Vershon Tate vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1623
7.      Dr. Jane Doe, et al. vs. Governor of Minnesota, et al., Mothers Offering Maternal Support – A23-0620
8.      In re the Marriage of: Anita Karen Dunne, n/k/a Anita Karen Fischer vs. Anthony Kieran Dunne – A23-0733
9.      In re the Marriage of: Deborah Kay Schadewald, n/k/a Deborah Kay DeJong vs. Gregory John Schadewald – A23-0436
10.    In re the Marriage of: Valentin Arkadievich Povarchuk vs. Rebecca Joyce Povarchuk – A23-1168
11.    In the Matter of the Assisted Living Contract Termination of D.W. by Graceful Lodge Home Care – A23-0786
12.    In the Matter of the Welfare of: G.M.D., Child – A23-1357
13.    In the Matter of:  Ester Berestov, on behalf of minor children vs. Betsalel Berestov – A23-0775
14.    Kallys Albert, Sr. vs. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), John Does – A23-0053
15.    Michael Walton Hinton vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1270
16.    Nicholas Gene Alleman vs. Commissioner of Public Safety – A23-0852
17.    Raymond L Semler, Mark Wallace vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al. – A24-0312
18.    State of Minnesota vs. Brandon Stuart Moore – A23-0395
19.    State of Minnesota vs. Cole Samuel Tran – A23-1032
20.    State of Minnesota vs. Daryl Craig Kivi – A23-0305
21.    State of Minnesota vs. Dennis Anthony Bradley – A23-0384
22.    State of Minnesota vs. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker – A23-1038
23.    State of Minnesota vs. Donald Jerome Harris – A23-0503
24.    State of Minnesota vs. Douglas Frederick Gratz – A23-0333
25.    State of Minnesota vs. Jennifer Marie Hansen – A23-0428
26.    State of Minnesota vs. Jonquil Bernard Neal – A23-0409
27.    State of Minnesota vs. Marice Darnell King – A23-0157
28.    State of Minnesota vs. Reginald Scott Hubbard – A23-0587
29.    State of Minnesota vs. Samuel Morton Post III – A23-0567
30.    State of Minnesota vs. Slade James Kruse – A23-0689
31.    State of Minnesota vs. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore – A23-0447
32.    State of Minnesota vs. Tawan E. Carter – A23-0320
33.    Tyler Grant Thompson vs. Arlen Britton – A23-0967
Denied – Filed May 24, 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.D.M. and A.T.C.W. (deceased), AKA A.T.W., AKA A.C.W., Parents – A23-1768
Dismissed – Filed May 17, 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.L.G. and H.W.G., Parents – A23-1140, A23-1143
Denied – Filed May 17, 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V.R.R. and M.A.H., Parents, Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian – A23-1358