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.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED Wednesday, May 14, 2025
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A22-1163 In the Matter of Keystone Township, et al., Appellants, vs. Red Lake Watershed District, Respondent, Paul Novacek, et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals.
1. The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct drainage improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39—a ditch under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners—because, under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625 (2024) and our decision in
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 153 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1967), a watershed district need not first take over the ditch from the county before the watershed district conducts improvement proceedings for the ditch.
2. The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct the proceedings without the involvement of county officials, insofar as the involvement of county officials would be inconsistent with the Watershed Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 103D (2022), and none of appellants’ other alleged procedural defects affected the Red Lake Watershed District’s authority to establish the improvement project over Ditch 39.
Affirmed. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A24-0847 Burnsville Medical Building, LLC, Relator, vs. County of Dakota, Respondent.
Minnesota Tax Court.
1. The tax court did not err by using market rent rather than effective net rent to calculate the subject property’s potential gross income under the income capitalization approach to valuation because the taxpayer’s tenant improvement allowances and rent concessions were typical of the market.
2. The tax court did not clearly err by rejecting the taxpayer’s proposed occupancy adjustment under the sales comparison approach to valuation.
Affirmed. Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
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
- Click the above link.
- Save the unzipped file to your computer.
- Choose the "Open" option on the Download Complete screen.
- Extract the files to a location of your choice.
- Open the extracted file.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
NO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS RECENTLY FILED
ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW
FILED Tuesday, May 13, 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. Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for an Order Directing Entry of New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale
Certificate No. 112938 – Foster – A24-0632
Issue Granted: Does a holder of a sheriff’s certificate of sale from a mortgage foreclosure waive its right to contest a junior creditor’s redemption as taught by this Court’s opinions in
Clark,
Orr,
Johnson,
Grant and
Leland when it retained the funds tendered by the junior creditor?
2. State of Minnesota vs.
Dylan Stephen Gaul – A24-0555
Issues Granted: (1) Does the sender of an email have a reasonable expectation of privacy and a right against government trespass in that email under the federal and Minnesota constitutions, at least until it reaches its destination? (2) Did the district court’s order rely on clearly erroneous findings, most importantly that the state proved that the Owatonna School District searched Gaul’s email after it landed in the student’s inbox when the only evidence related to the timing of the search was the Information Technology Director’s testimony that he did not know whether the search occurred before or after the email was received? (3) Even if the district court did not clearly err by finding that Gaul’s email was searched after it was received in the student’s inbox, did Gaul have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the email conversation even though the recipient was a student using a student-owned account?
Granted/Stayed
3. State of Minnesota vs.
Lionell Bailey – A23-1301
Issue: Under circumstantial evidence review, when the accusing witness admits facts that offer a reasonable alternative to guilt, but do not plainly negate the verdict, are such circumstances properly excluded from review?
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in
State v. Firkus, A23-0973.
Denied
4. Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company vs.
Kalesnikoff Lumber Company, Ltd., Kalesnikoff Mass Timber, Inc., Weekes Forest Products Inc. –
A24-1122
5.
Gregory Avery, Jr. vs. State of Minnesota, Adrian Scott LaFavor Montez, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, #1A Lifesafer of Minnesota, Inc., et al.
– A24-0596
6. In the matter of a Potentially Dangerous Dog declaration involving a black, tan & white colored Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka) dog
identified as “Judas” – A24-0374
7. In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mile Post 7 West Ridge Railroad Relocation, Dam
Extensions, and Stream Mitigation Project, Lake County, Minnesota – A24-0597
8.
Joyce Wolling vs. Grace Ouyang, Allina Health System, Physician’s Group of New Ulm, Ltd. – A24-0970
9. State of Minnesota vs.
Adam Eldon Switala – A24-0354
10. State of Minnesota vs.
Andre Antonio Walker Hansbrough – A24-0183
11. State of Minnesota vs.
Beth Marie Coolbroth – A24-0407
12. State of Minnesota vs.
Devin Dion Tillman – A24-0734
13. State of Minnesota vs.
Jose Francisco Aplicano-Ramos – A24-0165
14. State of Minnesota vs.
Luther Boris Cousette – A24-0660
15. State of Minnesota vs.
Peter Michael Dziuk – A23-1856
16. State of Minnesota vs.
Roseline Pierre Blanc – A25-0196
17. State of Minnesota vs.
Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky – A24-0232
18. State of Minnesota vs.
Tremayne Isaiah Colon – A24-0288
19. Thomas P Shoemaker vs
. Jason A Duenes, Jacob P Duenes, et al. – A24-1019
20. Timothy Michaels vs.
Fresh Vine Wine, Inc. – A24-0690
21. United Christian Fellowship Church, et al. vs. Spire Credit Union,
Jennifer L. Urban, et al. – A24-0718