EN BANC CALENDAR
Before
the
October 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, October 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Gary
J. Milner, et al., Respondents vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Appellant - Case
No. A06-178: Respondent Gary Milner and the other
respondents sued their employer, Farmers Insurance Exchange, claiming that they
were owed compensation for overtime under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,
Minn. Stat. ch. 177 (2006). Farmers
Insurance defended on the basis that respondents fit within the statute’s
exemption for employees in executive, administrative, or professional positions. A jury found that respondents’ primary duties
were not managerial, but declined to award respondents monetary damages. After the jury’s verdict, the district court
granted respondents’ motion for an injunction requiring Farmers Insurance to
reclassify respondents as nonexempt employees.
The court awarded civil penalties of $500 per person per pay period to
those respondents who had been classified as exempt. The district court also awarded respondents
their attorney fees and costs, increased by a 50 percent multiplier based on
the results obtained. The court of
appeals affirmed, but required the civil penalties to be paid to the state
rather than to the individual respondents and eliminated the multiplier from
the attorney fees award. The following
issues are presented to the supreme court:
(1) whether the district court erred by awarding civil penalties and
equitable relief for violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23 and .30 (2006) and
Minn. R. 5200.0100 (2005), where the complaint did not allege a violation of
section 177.30 and the complaint did not seek civil penalties; (2) whether the
district court erred by imposing an injunction and awarding civil penalties
under section 177.27 against an employer who is not held liable to employees
for unpaid compensation; (3) whether the district court erred in its award
of respondents’ attorney fees and costs; (4) whether the court of appeals erred
in ordering that civil penalties be paid to the state, rather than to the
individual respondents; and (5) whether the court of appeals erred by
eliminating the multiplier from the district court’s award of respondents’
attorney fees. (
State
of
Tuesday, October 2, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Mark
Alan Stutelberg, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent –
Case No. A07-383: Appellant Mark Stutelberg was convicted in
1994 of first-degree murder. In this
appeal from the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, Stutelberg
presents the following issues for consideration: (1) whether the district court erred in
denying his petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing;
(2) whether the case was properly tried in Hennepin County, given that the
victim’s body was found in Goodhue County; (3) whether he is entitled to a new
trial because he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial;
(4) whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to testify in his own
defense; (5) whether he is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial
misconduct or the erroneous admission of hearsay statements; (6) whether he is
entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (7) whether the
newly discovered evidence establishes his actual innocence. (
In
the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terrance John Giem – Case No. A06-1588: On October 20, 2005,
Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 6:30 p.m.
Aja
Bjerke, Respondent vs. Suzette E. Johnson, Appellant, Kenneth D. Bohlman,
Defendant – Case No. A06-117:
Respondent Aja Bjerke, then a minor,
was a periodic guest at a horse farm owned by appellant Suzette Johnson, where Bjerke
received room and board and riding lessons in return for work around the
farm. While staying at the farm, Bjerke
was sexually assaulted by defendant Kenneth Bohlman, who also lived on the
farm. After Bohlman was criminally
charged, Bjerke sued Johnson for negligence; the complaint against Johnson was
dismissed by the district court but reinstated by the court of appeals. Before the supreme court are two issues: (1) whether Johnson had a duty to protect
Bjerke from sexual assault because there was a “special relationship” between
Johnson and Bjerke and the assault was foreseeable; and (2) whether the
doctrines of comparative fault and primary assumption of the risk are proper
defenses in a civil suit by a minor victim of sexual assault against someone
who is alleged to have allowed the assault to occur. (
Thursday, October 4, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of
EN BANC NONORAL: Voice Stream Minneapolis, Inc., d/b/a
T-Mobile, a Delaware corporation, Respondent vs. RPC Properties, Inc.,
Appellant – Case No. A06-394: Appellant RPC Properties, Inc., and
respondent Voice Stream Minneapolis, Inc., reached a settlement agreement under
which Voice Stream agreed to remove its antennas from the roof of RPC
Properties’ office building in
Monday, October 8, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300,
State
of
EN BANC NONORAL: Deanna L. Byers, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A07-615: The Commissioner of Revenue assessed relator Deanna Byers Minnesota individual income taxes, penalties, and interest for the years 1996, 1997, and 1998, and Byers appealed the assessments to the Minnesota Tax Court. Byers raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the tax court was required to transfer constitutional issues to the district court for determination before holding a trial on the merits; (2) whether Minn. Stat. § 289A.37 (2006), which places the burden of proof on the taxpayer who challenges a tax assessment, deprives the taxpayer of due process; (3) whether Minn. Stat. § 270.0603, subd. 3 (2004) (now Minn. Stat. § 270C.33, subd. 2(b) (2006)), invalidates a tax assessment that is not accompanied by a notice of the taxpayer’s rights; and (4) whether the evidence before the tax court was sufficient to support its determination of Byers’s income for the years in question. (Tax Court)
Tuesday, October 9, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
State
of
Wednesday, October 10, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300,
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against James L. Berg, a
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael F. Swensen, a