OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, November 20, 2024

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

A23-1218   In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Madsen Marcellus, Jr., a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0344643.
          1. An attorney who is licensed to practice law and is practicing law in Minnesota at the time the Director of the Office of Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility learns that the attorney has been publicly disciplined or is subject to public disciplinary charges in another jurisdiction is subject to reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
          2. Reciprocal discipline of disbarment under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, is appropriate where an attorney was disbarred in another jurisdiction for participating in a fraudulent mortgage application that also violated a court order in a dissolution proceeding, failing to inform a court of the fraudulent nature of that application, willfully violating numerous court orders in a marital dissolution proceeding, violating the terms of a final judgment in his marital dissolution proceedings, failing to pay court-ordered fees and taking
steps to avoid legal process, and failing to pay court-ordered child support over a period of several years even after earlier discipline had been imposed for that conduct.
          Disbarred. Per Curiam.
          Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.

  A24-0622   In re Petition for Reinstatement of Brian N. Larson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0306587.
          Reinstated. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.

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, October 30, 2024

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

 
Granted
 
1.         Hillary Mercer Graves vs. Richard Charles Graves – A23-1620
 
Issue Granted:  Does “present environment,” as that phrase is used in Minnesota’s custody modification statute’s endangerment requirement (Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv)), permit a court to consider future predictions of a parent’s behavior?
 
 
2.         Hook & Ladder Apartments, L.P. vs. Nichole Nalewaja, John Doe, et al. –
A23-1048
 
Issue Granted: Should Minnesota families who rely on rent subsidies receive fewer protections from eviction than those who do not?
 
 
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Nicholas Lee Hill – A23-0560
 
Issues Granted:  (1) As a matter of first impression, what is the State’s burden of proof under Minn. Stat. § 634.03 to sufficiently corroborate the corpus delicti of an attempt crime?  (2) When the State charges a defendant with an attempt crime, and the defendant confesses to having the intent to commit the attempted crime, has the State met its burden of proving the corpus delicti of the attempted crime under Minn. Stat. § 634.03 when it produces independent evidence showing the defendant committed multiple elements of the underlying attempted crime?
 
 
Grant/Stay
 
4.         State of Minnesota vs. Jason Turner Johnson – A24-0245
 
Issue:  Are there compelling reasons for this Court to adopt one unified standard for jail credit determinations, thereby overruling the intra/interstate dichotomy, as there is no justification for the “solely in connection with” test and because the interstate rule violates constitutional equal protection and due process provisions?
 
Stayed pending final disposition of Johnson’s appeal from the June 3, 2024, court of appeals’ decision in which the supreme court previously granted review on a jurisdictional issue.
 
 
Granted – Accelerated Review
 
5.         In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K. and A.S., Parents – A24-1296
 
            Issues:  (1) Do ICWA/MIFPA unconstitutionally deny equal protection to children they classify as “Indian” and to non-“Indian” persons seeking custody of them?  (2) Does the district court violate a person’s constitutional right to petition the government and access the courts by prohibiting the person from intervening into a proceeding based on the person’s good-faith legal challenge to a governing law?  (3) Did the district court err by denying petitioners’ motion for permissive intervention under Juvenile Protection Rule 34.02 based on petitioners challenging ICWA/MIFPA’s constitutionality, disagreement with a tribe on the twins’ best interests, seeking custody of the twins, bringing the twins to visit their biological mother and seeking her support, and having limited ability to see the twins after their removal?  (4) May the district court dismiss an interested third party’s valid custody petition under Minn. Stat. § 267C.03 without an evidentiary hearing, by denying the party’s petition for permissive intervention under Juvenile Protection Rule 34.02?  (5) Did the district court err by dismissing petitioners’ custody petition under Minn. Stat. § 267C.03 by, without an evidentiary hearing, notwithstanding Lewis-Miller v. Ross, 710 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 2006), weighing the petition’s and affidavit’s allegations against evidence apparently from other sources?
 
 
Grant/Vacate/Remand
 
6.         State of Minnesota vs. Donald James Miller – A23-1300
 
Issue:  Did the court of appeals’ reliance on information it obtained from an appellate opinion from an unrelated case to resolve Petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence claim so far depart from the accepted and usual course of justice that this Court should exercise it supervisory powers and grant review of Petitioner’s case?
 
            The decision of the court of appeals was vacated and the case remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration without reference to State v. Peterson, A23-0732, 2024 WL 1987791 (Minn. App. May 6, 2024) and the facts contained therein.
 

Denied

7.         All-American Ice L.L.C., DBA All-American Arena Products vs. American Arena, LLC – A24-0303
8.            Angie M. Barsness, et al. vs. Fairview Health Services – A23-1803
9.            Beth Ostergaard Stillwell vs. Harry Alan Stillwell – A23-1487
10.          Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli vs. Jolieene Anne Wright – A23-1477
11.          In re Aaron Dale Sybrant, In re the Marriage of: Kayla Lynn Sybrant vs. Aaron Dale Sybrant – A24-0711
12.          In re the Custody of B.B.F.F. – A23-1449
13.          In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.S.M., Child – A23-1448
14.          Iraj C. Ezati vs. Friendly Chevrolet, Department of Employment and Economic Development – A24-1006
15.          Jesse Bruce Jensen vs. Commissioner of Public Safety – A23-1481
16.          Mang Yang vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1862
17.          Maria Olson, et al. vs. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP – A23-1758
18.          Mike Allen Homes, LLC vs. Matthew Alan Hiley, et al. – A23-1242
19.          Save Indus Group, et al. vs. Ind. School District No. 363 – A23-1093
20.          State of Minnesota vs. Aaron Mitchel Peterson –A23-1169
21.          State of Minnesota vs. Antoine Darnique Suggs – A23-1203
22.          State of Minnesota vs. Deavion Ladell Beasley, Sr. – A23-1476
23.          State of Minnesota vs. Dymond Rene Hayden – A23-1047
24.          State of Minnesota vs. Ernan Patricio Ortega Lazo – A23-1282
25.          State of Minnesota vs. Jesse Wayne Blaylock – A23-1030
26.          State of Minnesota vs. Kyle Grayling Tweed – A23-1075
27.          State of Minnesota vs. Orin Nigel Kelly – A23-1076
28.          State of Minnesota vs. Rajiv Thomas Kjorsvig – A23-1875
29.          State of Minnesota vs. William Kenneth Pike – A23-0680
30.          Troy K. Scheffler vs. Lake Edward Township, County of Crow Wing – A23-1976
31.          Troy K. Scheffler vs. Lake Edward Township, County of Crow Wing – A24-0069