EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

January 2014

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, January 6, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, Appellant vs. Brian Lee, Respondent – Case No. A12-2078: Appellant Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth brought an eviction action against respondent Brian Lee, a tenant living in public housing under the Section 8 housing assistance program, for failure to make timely rent payments. Lee challenged the eviction action, claiming that appellant had charged late fees that were barred by Minn. Stat. § 504B.177 (2012), which generally caps late fees at 8% of the overdue rent payment. The district court granted summary judgment to appellant, concluding that federal law preempts the state statute. The court of appeals reversed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the 8% cap on late fees in Minn. Stat. § 504B.177(a) is preempted by federal law; (2) whether the late fees were permitted under Minn. Stat. § 504B.177(b); and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in deciding that the late fees are unreasonable under federal law. (St. Louis County)

Nonoral: Lon F. Gamble, Respondent vs. Twin Cities Concrete Products and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Relators, Lakeview Hospital, intervenor, Respondent, Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, Dr. Elmer Kasperson, Nurse Anesthesia Services, St. Croix Orthopaedics, Intervenors – Case No. A13-1409: Respondent Lon Gamble fell from a ladder while working for relator Twin Cities Concrete Products (TCCP). TCCP admitted liability for the injury and paid various workers’ compensation benefits. After the fall, Gamble began to experience low back pain, and his treating physician recommended a spinal fusion. TCCP denied reimbursement for the surgery. Gamble, however, had the surgery at respondent Lakeview Hospital. Gamble’s health insurer, intervenor Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund (the Fund), paid Lakeview $52,089 for the surgery.

In June 2011, a hearing was held before the compensation judge at which the issues related to the fusion surgery were addressed. Lakeview was not given timely notice of its right to intervene at this hearing and did not participate in this hearing. The compensation judge found the fusion surgery was casually related to Gamble’s surgery but that it was not reasonable and necessary. The compensation judge further found that TCCP had to reimburse the Fund for the payment it made to Lakeview.

After TCCP sought reimbursement from Lakeview for the payments it had reimbursed to the Fund, Lakeview filed a motion for intervention in the workers’ compensation proceeding. The compensation judge reopened the proceeding and allowed Lakeview to demonstrate that the surgery was reasonable and necessary. The compensation judge once again rejected that argument. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether a medical provider is entitled to payment of its claim if it was not given notice of its right to intervene before a hearing resulting in a final resolution of an employee’s workers’ compensation claims, regardless of whether the treatment provided to the employee was reasonable and necessary; and (2) whether the WCCA properly determined that TCCP is responsible for paying Lakeview. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

Tony Allen Roman Nose, petitioner, Respondent v. State of Minnesota, Appellant – A13-0483: In 2001, respondent Tony Roman Nose was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Roman Nose was 17-years-old at the time of the offense. The supreme court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.

In 2012, Roman Nose filed a petition for postconviction relief. Relying on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), he asked the district court to reverse his sentence and resentence him to life in prison with the possibility of release. The district court concluded that Roman Nose’s petition was timely and that the holding of Miller applied retroactively to his case. It resentenced Roman Nose to life in prison with the possibility of release.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court’s conclusion that Miller applies retroactively to Roman Nose’s case is inconsistent with Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013); (2) whether Roman Nose is entitled to postconviction relief under Minnesota law in the interests of fundamental fairness; (3) whether Roman Nose is entitled to postconviction relief in the interests of justice; (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in resentencing Roman Nose without holding a sentencing hearing; and (5) whether the appeal should be dismissed because the court cannot grant the relief requested by the State. (Washington County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Alan J. Albrecht, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 191826 – Case No. A13-0520: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Prince Oliver Moore, Jr., Appellant – Case No. 13-0004: Following a jury trial, appellant Prince Moore was convicted of first-degree murder. On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the first-degree premeditated murder statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(1)(a) (2012), is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) whether Moore is entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of first-degree premeditated murder; (4) whether Moore is entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly admitted hearsay; and (5) whether Moore is entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly admitted evidence about Moore’s prior conduct toward his first wife as relationship evidence. (Hennepin County)

Nonoral: John L. Bowman, deceased employee, by Carol McIntire, Respondent vs. A & M Moving & Storage Company and Vanliner Insurance Company, Relators – Case No. A13-1699: Employee John Bowman suffered a back injury in 2007 while working for relator A & M Moving & Storage Company. A variety of treatments followed, including physical therapy and surgery. Bowman was prescribed and took a number of different pain medications. In November 2009, Bowman died. An autopsy found significantly high blood levels of oxycodone.

In 2012, Bowman’s personal representative filed a claim for dependency benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.111, subd. 22 (2012). The compensation judge found that Bowman’s death was causally related to the July 2007 work-related injury. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the compensation judge held respondent to the correct standard with respect to burden of proof on the issue of causation; and (2) whether the compensation judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals).

Monday, January 13, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Lori Swanson, et al., Appellants, City of Lake Elmo, Respondent, Metropolitan Council, Respondent vs. 3M Company, Respondent – Case Nos. A12-1856, A12-1867: In December 2010, appellant State of Minnesota filed a natural resources damages (NRD) lawsuit against respondent 3M company to recover damages based on 3M’s disposal of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) into the state’s surface and groundwater. The State retained Covington & Burling, LLP to represent it in the lawsuit. Covington had previously represented 3M, including with respect to regulatory matters before the Food and Drug Administration related to using PFCs in food-packaging applications.

In April 2012, 3M filed a motion seeking to disqualify Covington from representing the State. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted 3M’s motion to disqualify Covington, concluding a conflict of interest existed under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct. 1.9(a). Both the State and Covington appealed. The court of appeals granted 3M’s motion to dismiss Covington’s appeal for lack of standing and affirmed the district court.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether 3M waived its right to seek Covington’s disqualification; (2) whether Covington’s representation of the State in the NRD lawsuit violates Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9; (3) whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on 3M’s motion for disqualification because material facts were in dispute; (4) whether a district court has discretion when ruling on a motion to disqualify to allow a lawyer to continue to represent a client even though representation results in a conflict of interest in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9; and (5) whether Covington has standing to appeal the disqualification order. (Hennepin County)

Nonoral Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A13-1610: Relator Interstate Traffic Signs, Inc. rents traffic control equipment to contractors who perform construction projects. Interstate’s charges for renting traffic control equipment include labor charges for both delivery and pickup for the equipment. Through April 2010, Interstate charged its customers sales tax only on the amounts attributable to the actual sign rental. After April 2010, Interstate charged sales tax on the sign rental and delivery labor, but it did not charge sales tax on pickup labor. Following an audit, respondent Commissioner of Revenue determined that both delivery and pickup charges were subject to Minnesota sales and use tax. The Commissioner assessed Interstate $37,838 in additional sales and use tax and interest for the period July 1, 2007, through August 31, 2010. The Minnesota Tax Court affirmed the Commissioner’s order.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Interstate’s pickup charges are part of the sales price of its sign rentals and constitute taxable gross receipts subject to sales tax under Minn. Stat. § 297.61 (2012). (Minnesota Tax Court)

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

Harlan Poppler, et al., Respondents vs. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Appellant – Case No. A12-1615: Respondents Harlan Poppler, et al., brought an action against appellant Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, alleging that stray electrical voltage injured their dairy herd. The jury returned a special verdict, which found Wright Hennepin liable and awarded respondents $753,200 in damages. In post-trial motions, Wright Hennepin raised a number of issues, including challenges to the damages award. The district court granted Wright Hennepin’s motion to amend the jury’s verdict and itemized the damages award as provided in respondents’ expert report. The court of appeals, among other issues, concluded that the district court did not have authority to make additional findings on damages and that respondents had presented insufficient evidence of lost profits. The court of appeals remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court had authority to itemize the damages award; and (2) if the district court had such authority, whether the court of appeals erred by not ordering a remittitur of the entire damages award. (Wright County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Randall D. B. Tigue, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 110000 – Case No. A13-0519: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.