EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
March 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, March 5, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kurt Thomas Bird, Appellant – Case No. A06-888:
Appellant Kurt Thomas Bird appeals from his conviction of first-degree
murder and first-degree domestic abuse murder.
The issue before the court is whether Bird is entitled to a new trial
because the district court prevented Bird’s expert witness from testifying that
Bird was psychotic at the time of the shooting and from describing the effects
of psychosis, information that Bird contends would have assisted the jury in
determining whether he acted “in the heat of passion” or “manifested extreme
indifference to human life” at the time of the shooting. (Hennepin
County)
John
A. Woodhall, Jr., et al., Appellants vs. State of Minnesota,
Respondent – Case No. A05-2424 AND State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of
Transportation, Respondent vs. Grove City Grain and Feed Company, Respondent
Below, Timothy R. Pieh, et al., Appellants - Case No. A05-2425:
Appellants John and Donna Woodhall II, John and Diane
Woodhall III, and Douglas and Carmen Woodhall (in No. A05-2424) and
Timothy and Mary Pieh (in No. A05-2525) owned land acquired by condemnation by
the State of Minnesota
through its Commissioner of Transportation.
In each case the appellants appealed to the district court from the
determination of the value of the land being acquired, and in each case the
district court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
grounds that the appellants had not served notice of the appeal on all of the
parties entitled under the statute to notice.
The applicable statute, Minn. Stat. § 117.145 (2006), requires
service of notice of the appeal “on all respondents and all other parties to
the proceedings having an interest in any parcel described in the appeal who
are shown in the petitioner’s affidavit of mailing * * * as having been mailed
a notice of the report of the commissioners.”
At issue are: (1) whether
strict compliance with the statute is necessary for the district court to have
subject matter jurisdiction over a condemnation award appeal; and
(2) whether appellants complied with the statutory notice provision in
each of these cases. (Kandiyohi County)
Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 11:00 a.m.
Hamline Law
School
David
Granville and Marlyss Granville, as parents and natural guardians of Kailynn
Granville, a minor, Appellants (Case No. A05-1377), Jacqueline Johnson, as
parent and natural guardian of Shanel Andrews, a minor, Appellant (Case No. A05‑1378)
vs. Minneapolis School District, Special School District
No. 1, Respondent:
After Kailynn Granville and Shanel Andrews were injured during a physical
education class, their parents (appellants David and Marlyss Granville in
No. A05-1377 and appellant Jacqueline Johnson in No. A05-1378) separately
sued respondent Minneapolis
School District for
negligence. Their cases are consolidated
on appeal. The school district moved for
summary judgment in both cases on grounds of statutory immunity. Under Minn. Stat. § 466.12 (2006),
a school district that cannot obtain liability insurance at a cost
of $1.50 or less per pupil is immune from tort liability. The limit of $1.50 per pupil is
unchanged since the statute was enacted in 1969. The district court concluded that the statute
was unconstitutional and denied the school district’s motion for summary
judgment. The court of appeals
reversed. The issue before the Supreme
Court is whether the statute is unconstitutional because it violates
appellants’ equal protection rights and deprives them of a remedy for the
school district’s negligence. (Hennepin County)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Appellant vs. Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent – Case No. A05-568: In
August 2005 a car registered to respondent Daniel Alan Kuhlman was
photographed by Minneapolis’
automated traffic law enforcement system running a red light. Kuhlman was cited for the traffic violation,
but the complaint was dismissed on grounds that the Minneapolis ordinance instituting the camera
system was preempted under Minn. Stat. § 169.022 (2006), which allows
local authorities to adopt traffic regulations provided those regulations are
not in conflict with state law. The
court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Minneapolis ordinance conflicts with state
law, and is therefore preempted, because it makes owners, rather than drivers,
presumptively liable and because it places the burden of proof on the vehicle
owner to prove he or she was not driving the vehicle at the time of the
violation. Appellant State of Minnesota
presents the Supreme Court with the following issues for review: (1) whether Minn.
Stat. § 169.022 (2006) preempts the city’s authority to enact the
automated traffic law enforcement system; (2) whether the automated
enforcement system is authorized under Minn. Stat. § 169.04 (2006),
which allows cities like Minneapolis to “regulat[e] traffic by means of police
officers or traffic-control signals”; and (3) whether the automated
system can be enforced by severing section 474.660 of the Minneapolis Code
of Ordinances, which places the burden on the owner of the vehicle to name the
driver, from the remaining sections of the ordinance. (Hennepin
County)
Wensmann
Realty, Inc., et al., Appellants vs. City of Eagan, Respondent – Case No.
A05-1074: Appellant Rahn Family, LP, owns the
Carriage Hills Golf Course in Eagan. The partnership sold the land to appellant
Wensmann Realty, Inc., contingent upon respondent City of Eagan amending its Comprehensive Guide Plan
to allow residential development of the property, which was then zoned as a
park district. The city declined to
amend its comprehensive plan, citing among other things the benefit the
property provided as “open space.” The
district court ordered the city to amend its comprehensive plan to designate
the property for residential development or commence eminent domain proceedings
against it. The court of appeals
reversed the district court. The issues
before the Supreme Court are:
(1) whether the city’s denial of the rezoning application was
arbitrary and capricious; and (2) whether the city’s denial of the
rezoning application constituted a regulatory taking of the property for which
it must compensate appellants. (Dakota County)
Thursday,
March 8, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
EN
BANC NONORAL: Leon M. Perry, petitioner,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-1562: On
appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after his
conviction of first-degree murder, appellant Leon Perry presents the following
issues for review: (1) whether
Minn. Stat. § 609.11 (2004), which provides for a minimum sentence
for a defendant convicted of the use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of
a crime, describes a separate crime for which Perry should have been separately
indicted; and (2) whether Perry’s claim is barred by State v. Knaffla because it was not raised in Perry’s direct
appeal. (Hennepin County)
EN
BANC NONORAL: Pierre LaMont Leake,
petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No.
A06-1357: On appeal from the denial of his petition
for postconviction relief after his conviction of first-degree murder,
appellant Pierre LaMont Leake presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court improperly
communicated with the jury during its deliberations; (2) whether the
district court improperly admitted testimony that was subject to the spousal
privilege; (3) whether the district court improperly instructed the jury;
and (4) whether Leake received the effective assistance of counsel. (Hennepin County)
Monday, March 12, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
Susan
Lee, Respondent vs. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc., Appellant – Case No. A05-1887: When
respondent Susan Lee’s employment by appellant Fresenius Medical Care was
terminated for cause, Lee had accumulated 181.86 hours of paid time
off. Under Minn.
Stat. § 181.13(a) (2006), “wages or commissions” actually earned and
unpaid at the time of discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand by
the employee. Under Fresenius Medical’s
employee handbook, employees terminated for cause forfeit earned paid time
off. The district court denied Lee’s
claim for payment, citing the employee handbook. The court of appeals reversed. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether
payment of unused vacation time is governed by statute or by contract between
employer and employee. (St. Louis County)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
In
re Commissioner of Public Safety, Petitioner.
Dale Lee Underdahl, Respondent vs. Commissioner of Public Safety,
Appellant – Case No. A06-1000: Respondent Dale Lee Underdahl was charged
with driving while intoxicated and his driver’s license was revoked. During the implied consent proceedings, the
district court ordered the state to produce the computer source code for the
Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The court of appeals
denied the petition of appellant Commissioner of Public Safety for a writ of
prohibition to prevent the district court from enforcing its order. At issue before the Supreme Court are: (1) whether the source code is
admissible information, or is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
information, considering the limited scope of an implied consent hearing;
(2) whether respondent’s request for the source code constitutes a
challenge to the formal adoption of the Intoxilyzer that must be brought under
the Administrative Procedures Act rather than in the courts; and
(3) whether the state has possession, custody, or control of the source
code such that the commissioner can be required to produce it. (Anoka
County)
In
re the Estate of Howard C. Kinney, Deceased – Case No. A05-1794: On
the day before their wedding in 1969, Howard and Lillian Kinney signed an
antenuptial agreement under which each essentially waived any claim against the
other’s estate. After Howard’s death,
Lillian contested the validity of the 1969 antenuptial agreement. The district court found that Lillian knew
the extent of Howard’s assets before signing the antenuptial agreement and that
the agreement was supported by sufficient consideration, but invalidated the
agreement on grounds that Lillian did not have the opportunity to consult with
independent legal counsel before signing it.
The court of appeals affirmed.
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether an antenuptial agreement
governed by common law, rather than by Minn. Stat. § 519.11 (2006),
is invalid in the absence of proof that each party had the opportunity to
consult with independent counsel before signing. (Ramsey
County)
Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Susan Ranae Jackson, Appellant – Case No. A05-247: Appellant Susan Ranae Jackson was charged with
possession and sale of methamphetamine based on evidence obtained under a
nighttime search warrant. The district
court found that the issuance of a nighttime warrant was not justified in Jackson’s case under Minn. Stat. § 626.14
(2006), but did not constitute a violation of Jackson’s constitutional rights and therefore
did not require suppression of the evidence.
Jackson
was convicted on the charges. The court
of appeals affirmed the conviction. At
issue before the Supreme Court are:
(1) whether the execution of a nighttime search warrant unsupported
by sufficient facts is a constitutional, and not merely a statutory, violation;
and (2) if it is a constitutional violation, whether the violation
requires suppression of the evidence obtained during the search. (Itasca County)
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kenneth M. Holker, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 46267 – Case No. A06-896: An
attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if
any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
EN
BANC NONORAL: State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Ronald Joseph Lemmer, Appellant – Case No. A05-2481: Appellant
Ronald Joseph Lemmer was charged with operating a motorboat under the influence
of alcohol, and his driving privileges were revoked. At the hearing on Lemmer’s petition for
review of his license revocation, the district court concluded that officers
had no particularized and objective basis for stopping Lemmer’s boat and
reinstated his driving privileges.
Lemmer then moved to dismiss the criminal charges based on the court’s
ruling in the implied consent proceeding.
Minnesota Statutes § 169A.53, subd. 3(g) (2006) provides
that an implied consent hearing “shall not give rise to an estoppel on any
issues arising from the same set of circumstances in any criminal
prosecution.” At the omnibus hearing,
Lemmer provided the court with a copy of an earlier decision by a district
court in Goodhue County that declared
section 169A.53, subd. 3(g), unconstitutional as a violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers and enjoined the state from enforcing it, from
which the state did not appeal. The
district court dismissed the criminal charges against Lemmer based on the Goodhue County district court’s reasoning, but
the court of appeals reversed and reinstated the charges. The issues before the Supreme Court are: (1) whether the state is enjoined by the
order issued by the Goodhue
County district court
from enforcing section 169A.53, subd. 3(g); (2) whether
section 169A.53, subd. 3(g), is unconstitutional as a violation of
the separation of powers; and (3) whether the state is estopped in this
case from relitigating issues decided in the implied consent hearing. (Scott
County)
Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial
Center
Inquiry
into the Conduct of the Honorable Rex D. Stacey – Case No. A06‑305:
A judicial discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline,
if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.