ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW
FILED Wednesday, February 28, 2024
(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)
Granted
1. Deborah Jane Clapp vs.
Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, et al. – A23-0360
Issues Granted: (1) Did the court of appeals err by holding that merely alleging that a governmental entity will utilize public funds to implement the terms of a collective bargaining agreement meets the requirements of a specific and unlawful disbursement of public funds for purposes of the taxpayer-standing doctrine, as required under
McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977) and its progeny? (2) Did the court of appeals err in concluding that there is no requirement for ripeness because the respondent sought declaratory judgment related to a contract to which respondent is not even a party?
2. State of Minnesota vs
. Korwin Lucio Balsley – A23-0133
Issue Granted: Does Balsley’s 2017 conviction for assault in the second degree qualify as a “previously committed” predatory crime for the purposes of enhancing Balsley’s sentence under the engrained-offender statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 3a(a)(2), when the conviction was out of sequence from the current conviction – a delayed report case where the charged offense allegedly occurred in 2015?
Granted/Stayed
3.
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation, et al. vs. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice County Property and Tax Elections, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon – A23-0302
Issue: Whether a petitioner under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a)(4) (2022) must serve all candidates running for office at the commencement of the action?
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in
Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services, No. A22-1420.
4. State of Minnesota vs.
Jeremiah John Dahl – A22-1255
Issue: Because decades of well-established precedent instructs that venue is an element of the charged offense the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, where a defendant opts for a court trial and the district court does not find the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged crime occurred in the county in which the case was tried, must the defendant’s conviction be reversed?
Cross-Review Issue: Whether venue is an essential element of every offense, such that the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charged offense was committed in the county where the case is being tried?
Both Petitions Stayed Pending Final Disposition in
State v. Paulson, A22-0632.
5.
Thomas Patrick Ness vs. Commissioner of Public Safety – A23-0831
Issue: Whether law enforcement’s failure to follow statutory requirements while informing petitioner that “refusing to submit to that search warrant is a crime,” as required by Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, should have resulted in rescission of the revocation as the officer did not follow the statute and did not direct either a blood or a urine test before revoking petitioner’s driving privileges.
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in
Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A22-1238.
Denied
6. In the Matter of:
Ellen Sue Laas Ewald, et al. vs. Nina Laas Ewald Nedrebo – A23-0331
7. In re Joseph Rued, In re the Marriage of Catrina M Rued vs.
Joseph D Rued and In the Matter of Joseph Daryll Rued on behalf of minor child vs.
Catrina Marie Rued on behalf of minor child – A23-1754
8.
Raymond Kvalvog vs. Christopher Nellermoe – A23-1781
9. State of Minnesota vs.
Daniel James Lewison – A22-1807
10. State of Minnesota vs.
Jack Guy – A22-1555
11. State of Minnesota vs.
Juan Eduardo Rodriguez Morales – A22-0350
12. State of Minnesota vs.
Keevin Lashawn Hinton – A22-1772
13. State of Minnesota vs.
Rolmando Walker – A22-1734
14. State of Minnesota vs.
Samuel James Lyons – A22-1744
15. State of Minnesota vs.
Stacey Kay Johnson –A22-1752
16. State of Minnesota vs.
Terry Allen Stewart – A23-0188