Precedential OpinionsUnder Minn. Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 136.01, the Court of Appeals issues a precedential opinion (formerly called "published opinions") only to clarify or develop the law.  In deciding whether to issue a precedential opinion, the court considers multiple factors listed in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. (1)(b), incluing whether the case establishes a new principle or rule of law, clarifies existing case law, decides a novel issue involving a constitutional provision, statute, administrative rule or rule of court, or resolves a significant or recurring legal issue.  Precedential opinions will be considered and used by courts faced with similar issues in the future, and they are published in books of caselaw found in most law libraries.  Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 1(f), parties may advise the court whether a precedential opinion would be helpful. 

DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED Monday, October 28, 2024

A23-1948   Jeremy McNitt, Relator, vs. Minnesota IT Services (MNIT), Respondent.
                   Minnesota Department of Information Technology Services.
          1. When an administrative-law judge recommends granting summary disposition in a contested case, the administrative-law judge’s report and recommendation does not constitute the final decision of the agency under Minn. Stat. § 14.62 (2022) if the agency timely orders a remand and expressly accepts, modifies, or rejects each of the administrative-law judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the same order.
          2. When an applicant for public employment who has a prior conviction directly relating to the position for which they have applied provides “competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness,” as identified in Minn. Stat. § 364.03, subd. 3(a) (2022), the hiring authority does not have discretion to disqualify the applicant from employment in the position sought based on the conviction.
          Reversed and remanded. Judge Randall J. Slieter.

A24-0198   State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Julia Gabrielle Monyak, Appellant.
                   Douglas County District Court, Hon. Gretchen Thilmony.
          As an element of exceeding a school speed limit in a reduced-speed zone under Minnesota Statutes section 169.14, subdivision 5a(b) (2022), the state must prove that, at the time and location of the charged driving conduct, a school speed limit was made effective by the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced-speed zone.
          Reversed. Judge Keala C. Ede.

Nonprecedential OpinionsNonprecedential opinions (formerly called "unpublished opinions") are typically issued in cases that do not contain issues of first impression or involve the application of established law to the particular set of facts and circumstances in that case.  See Minn. R. Civ. App. 136.01.  Nonprecedential opinions "are not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel, but nonprecedential opinions may be cited as persuasive authority." Minn. R. Civ. App. 136.01. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINIONS
FILED Monday, October 28, 2024

Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1 (c)

1.   A24-0772
      In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brendon Alan Tempel.
      Affirmed in part, and remanded. Chief Judge Susan L. Segal.
      Dodge County District Court, Hon. Judge Debra Groehler.

2.   A23-1563
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. David Stephan Herr, Appellant.
      Affirmed. Chief Judge Susan L. Segal.
      Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Hilary L. Caligiuri.

3.   A23-1931
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Esteban J Ramos, Jr., Appellant.
      Affirmed. Judge Francis J. Connolly.
      Kandiyohi County District Court, Hon. Melissa Listug.

4.   A24-0328
      In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. W., Parent.
      Affirmed. Judge Louise Dovre Bjorkman.
      Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Bruce D. Manning.

5.   A24-0342
      In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. M. H. and J. J. B., Parents.
      Affirmed. Judge Diane B. Bratvold.
      Rice County District Court, Hon. Karie M. Anderson.

6.   A23-0933
      Faith Zen Riverstone, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jamie Anne Stempfley, Respondent.
      Affirmed. Judge Diane B. Bratvold.
      Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Nelson L. Peralta.

7.   A23-0558
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Siyan Abdi Kusow, Appellant.
      Affirmed. Judge Sarah I. Wheelock.
      Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Adam Yang.

8.   A23-1880
      City of St. Cloud, Respondent, vs. Matthew H Schaefer, Relator, Amanda L. Clemens, Defendant.
      Affirmed. Judge Keala C. Ede.
      City of St. Cloud.

9.   A24-0487
      Natalie Storm Pettit AND obo Minor Children, Respondent, vs. Jeremy Pettit, Appellant.
      Affirmed. Judge JaPaul J. Harris.
      Wright County District Court, Hon. Judge John Bowen.

10. A23-1650
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sean Garrison McNerthney, Appellant.
      Affirmed. Judge JaPaul J. Harris.
      Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Jeannice M. Reding.

11. A23-1554
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Deondre Demetrius Ramsey, Appellant.
      Reversed and remanded. Judge JaPaul J. Harris.
      Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Daniel C. Moreno.

Order OpinionsCases that involve a few simple issues may be decided by order opinions, which include little discussion of the facts of the case and a brief analysis of the laws that are involved. Order opinions "are not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel." Minn. R. Civ. App. 136.01. 

RECENT ORDER OPINIONS
October 28, 2024

1.   A24-0512
      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jesus Salvador Zepeda Carbajal, Appellant.
      Reversed and remanded. Judge Jennifer Frisch.
      Rice County District Court, Hon. Christine Long.

Opinions released on a day other than the court’s weekly release date will appear on the Special Release Opinions tab. Special release opinions may be precedential, nonprecedential, or order opinions.  

NO SPECIAL RELEASE OPINIONS FILED

Opinion SetsAs of June 1, 2023, the Court of Appeals no longer provides opinion sets in Word Document format and Rich Text Format. Opinions are available in PDF format under the Opinions tabs on this site.

Opinion Sets For Opinions
Filed Monday, October 28, 2024

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.