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, December 6, 2023


A21-1518       William Findling, et al, Appellants, vs. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health 
A21-1527       Partners, and Regions Hospital, Respondent (A21-1518), Essentia Health, et al., 
A21-1528       Respondents (A21-1527), Fairview Health Services, et al., Respondents
A21-1530       (A21- 1528), Allina Health Systems, Respondent (A21-1530)
                        Court of Appeals
            1. An individual may bring a private action under the Minnesota private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2022), to compel a healthcare provider to disclose that individual’s medical records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act under Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5 (2022).
            2. An individual does not have a private right of action under the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 144.651 (2022), to compel a healthcare provider to disclose an individual’s medical records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act under Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5.
            Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Justice Paul C. Thissen.
            Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice G. Barry Anderson.
            Took no part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.

A22-0299        In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against David L. Ludescher, a Minnesota 
                        Attorney, Registration No. 194347.
                        Supreme Court.
            1. The attorney discipline referee did not err by concluding that the juvenile court’s orders purporting to grant the attorney’s client temporary custody (both physical and legal) of the client’s child were unenforceable.
            2. The attorney discipline referee did not err by concluding that the transaction set-aside provision in Minnesota Statutes section 524.5-417(e) (2022) did not apply to the termination of the attorney’s on-going attorney-client relationship with a client who became subject to a conservatorship.
            3. The attorney discipline referee did not misinterpret Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 by determining that the attorney violated the rules of professional misconduct when the attorney failed to disclose his incapacitated client’s file to the conservator.
            4. Suspension from the practice of law for a minimum of 60 days followed by a 2-year term of supervised probation is the appropriate discipline for this attorney’s misconduct.
            Suspended. Per Curiam
            Took no part, Justice Gordon L. Moore, III., Justice Karl C. Procaccini


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 Tuesday, November 28, 2023

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)
1.         David Carl Hepfl vs. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft – A22-1706
Issue Granted:  What factors should be reviewed when determining a statement is either immoral or illegal to meet the standards for an unjust enrichment claim?
2.         Sean Michael Wocelka vs. State of Minnesota – A22-1239
Issue Granted:  Does “touching by actor of the complainant's intimate parts” in the definition of “sexual contact” include the actor’s use of an object to make contact with the complainant?
3.         South Country Health Alliance, et al., vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Medica Health Plans, HMO Minnesota, HealthPartners, Inc., UCare Minnesota, UnitedHealthcare of Illinois – A22-1643

Issues Granted: Joint petition of Medica Health Plans, HMO Minnesota, HealthPartners, Inc., UCare Minnesota, and UnitedHealthcare of Illinois:  1) Does the lack of a waiver of the federal “open procurement” requirement constitute a failure to “obtain[] all federal approval required to maintain federal matching funds in the medical assistance program” under Minnesota Statutes § 256B.692, subd. 9, thereby foreclosing the implementation of county-based purchasing?  2) Does the later-enacted Minnesota Statutes § 256B.694 prevail over the earlier-enacted section 256B.69, subd. 3a(c) in any arguable conflict between the two, leading to the application of the plain language of section 256.694 that DHS may—but need not—award managed-care contracts to county-based purchasers?
Petition of Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al.:  1) Are county-based-purchasing health plans entitled to perpetual, competition-free Medicaid contracts in every county in which they choose to operate, absent federal approval?  2) Are joint-powers entities operating as health plans entitled to participate in the procurement mediation process provided by Minnesota Statute section 256B.69, subdivision 2a(d)?
4.         State of Minnesota vs. Dontae Deshaun White – A23-0126

Issue Granted:  Does the restitution statute require a district court to account for life-insurance benefits paid to a homicide victim’s family when determining their total economic loss where the insurance proceeds covered all the costs incurred by the family as a direct result of the crime?
5.         Natalie R. Brisson vs. State of Minnesota, et al. – A22-1827

Issues:  1) Whether the Minnesota legislature intended the statutory definition of “scope of office or employment” contained in the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act (“MSTCA”), Minn. Stat. § 3.732, subd. 1(3), to be as broad as the common law definition applied to vicarious liability claims against private employers.  2) Whether the standard under the public services provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn. Stat. § 363A.12 is the “knew or should know” standard applied to federal hostile work environment claims.
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in Sterry vs. Minnesota Department of Corrections, No. A22-0829.
6.         State of Minnesota vs. Regina Marie White – A22-1557
Issues:  1) Does the Minnesota accomplice liability statute also require that the defendant knew of the precise offense her accomplice intended to commit, and intend her actions or presence aid in the commission of that specific crime?  2) Must White’s conviction be vacated?
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Segura, No. A22-0163.
7.      Ali Alfureedy, et al. vs. City of Saint Paul – A22-1674
8.      Daniel Baye vs. Brian McKee – A23-0512
9.      In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.K.B.-W., Child – A22-1820
10.    Jade Joseph Nickels vs. Drew Evans, Superintendent, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension – A22-0729
11.    Mackenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation vs. Maple Grove Hospital, Premier OBGYN of Minnesota PA
         d/b/a Oakdale Obstetrics & Gynecology, et al., Jillian Hallstrom M.D., et al. – A23-0190
12.    State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights vs. City of Minneapolis, Police Officers
          Federation of Minneapolis, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, Communities United Against Police Brutality,
          Ade Olumide – A23-1230
13.    State of Minnesota vs. Burton Gregory Alan Stover – A23-0062
14.    State of Minnesota vs. Clifton Scott Campbell – A22-1473
15.    State of Minnesota vs. Jose Alarcon – A22-1322
16.    State of Minnesota vs. Marc Richard Redmond – A22-1299
17.    State of Minnesota vs. Marcus Jacoby Moore – A22-1254
18.    Suzanne Stephens vs. Jon Goodwin as Trustee of the Cleone J. Goodwin Revocable Trust Agreement dated July 17, 1995, as amended, et al.,
          Rodney Goodwin – A22-1347
19.    Todd Deon Rolack vs. State of Minnesota – A23-0136