Minnesota Judicial Branch Logo

Supreme Court Opinions

GovDelivery SubscribeSign up to receive updates


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, April 16, 2025

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


A24-1309   Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators.
                    Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
          1. To receive permanent total disability workers’ compensation benefits after age 67, an employee must rebut the retirement presumption in Minnesota Statutes section 176.101, subdivision 4 (2016), by a preponderance of the evidence.
          2. Whether an employee rebuts the retirement presumption in Minnesota Statutes section 176.101, subdivision 4 (2016), is determined by weighing case-specific factors.
          Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Justice Anne K. McKeig.

A23-0271   State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Henry Lee Brown, Appellant.
                    Court of Appeals.
          The criminal vehicular homicide statute for leaving the scene, Minnesota Statutes § 609.2112, subd. 1(a)(7) (2024), does not require the State to prove a defendant was
operating a motor vehicle at the time of a collision.
          Affirmed. Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
          Concurring, Justice Paul C. Thissen, Justice Anne K. McKeig, Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
          Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.

A23-0265   In re Petition for Reinstatement of Scott Selmer, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 156024.
          1. The findings of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board panel are not clearly erroneous or inconsistent with our case law.
          2. Based on our independent review of the record, the petitioner has not met his burden of proving moral change or competence to practice law as required for reinstatement.
          Petition denied. Per Curiam.
          Took no part, 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.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS


NO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS RECENTLY FILED

 

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

FILED Tuesday, April 15, 2025


(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

POSTED THURSDAY AFTER SPECIAL TERM CONFERENCE
(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)
 
Granted
 
1.         American Family Insurance Company a/s/o Nicholas Oelke vs. NB Electric, Inc. dba East Side Garage Doors, Morningstar Remodeling, LLC – A24-
            0377
 
Issue Granted:  Whether, pursuant to Section 541.051, Subdivision 1(c) of the Minnesota Statutes, Respondent insurance company’s subrogation cause of action for alleged construction defect accrued when its insured homeowner terminated the contractors alleged to have caused the injury to his real property when the injury had already been discovered.
 
 
2.         Rebecca A. Niebuhr vs. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg, et al. – A24-0699
 
Issue Granted:  When a minor is entitled to immunity under the Minnesota Workers Compensation Act for a claim brought against him for the death of his employer, can the minor’s parents nevertheless be held vicariously liable for the minor’s actions solely because they owned the vehicle involved in the accident?
 
Denied
 
3.             Bruber Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Persolvent vs. Arux Software, Inc. – A24-0850
4.             Daniel Olean vs. John Skubitz, Patrick Flanagan, Jim Connolly – A24-1982
5.             In re Joseph Daryll Rued – A25-0057
6.             In re Joseph Rued, In re the Marriage of Catrina M Rued vs. Joseph D Rued – A24-2035
7.             In re the Marriage of: Brent Lee Florine vs. Lauren Marie Florine – A23-1779, A23-1981
8.             PPB Holdings, L.P. vs. County of Carver, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota – A24-0516
9.             Provision Media, Inc. vs. Century College, et al. – A24-0376
10.           State of Minnesota vs. Adrian Dominque Bell – A24-0217
11.           State of Minnesota vs. Charles Edward Love – A24-0189
12.           State of Minnesota vs. Glenn Alan Johnson – A24-0152
13.           State of Minnesota vs. Iman Ahmed Abdelhakim – A24-0163
14.           State of Minnesota vs. Kenneth James Holcomb, Jr. – A24-0323
15.           State of Minnesota vs. Renan Guandique – A24-0063
16.           State of Minnesota vs. Thomas John Forcier – A24-0678, A24-0704
17.           State of Minnesota vs. Walter Hermel Mendez Cabrera – A24-0580
18.           Stephen Sawyer, et al. vs. Trustee(s) of the Patricia A. Boland Revocable Trust Agreement Dated June 4, 2012, et al. – A24-0577
19.           Tokvan Ly vs. Shireen Ghandi, Temporary Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services – A22-1826
20.           Troy K. Scheffler vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation – A24-0564