EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

December 2021

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, November 29, 2021

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

Linda Cobb Thompson, Appellant vs. St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, LP, et al., Respondents – Case No. A20-1367: Appellant Linda Thompson is a tenant in an apartment complex owned and managed by respondents St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, LP, et al. On behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated plaintiffs, Thompson asserted statutory and common-law claims against respondents. The claims are all based on the allegation that respondents charged rent in excess of Minn. Stat. § 474A.047 (2020), a section of the Minnesota Bond Allocation Act, which applies to residential rental projects developed using tax-exempt bonds. The statute provides that “the maximum rent” charged for a specified portion of units may not “exceed the area fair market rent or exception fair market rents for existing housing, if applicable, as established by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.” Minn. Stat. § 474A.047, subd. 1(a)(2).

 

The district court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The court of appeals affirmed. Interpreting section 474A.047, the court of appeals held that the term “area fair market rent” means “a payment-standard amount determined by the local public housing authority within the basic range of 90% to 110% of fair market rent.” Therefore, because the rent charged did not exceed this limit, the court of appeals concluded that Thompson had not alleged any facts that would establish a violation of the statute.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the term “area fair market rent” in Minn. Stat. § 474A.047 means (a) the fair market rent measure established for each metropolitan area by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for use in a variety of affordable housing programs, or (b) the basic range payment standard established by local public housing authorities for use in housing-choice voucher programs; and (2) whether Thompson has standing to bring the claims against respondents. (Hennepin County)

 

David Smits, as Trustee for the next of kin for Brian Short, Karen Short, Madison Short, Cole Short, Brooklyn Short, Respondent vs. Park Nicollet Health Services, et al., Appellants – Case No. A20-0711: This appeal arises out of the deaths of Brian Short (Short) by suicide and his wife and three children by familicide. Respondent David Smits, the trustee for the next of kin, brought this wrongful death action against appellants Park Nicollet Health Services, et al. (Park Nicollet), which provided outpatient mental health services to Short.

 

The district court granted Park Nicollet’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Park Nicollet did not owe a duty to Short or his family members as a matter of law. The district court reasoned in part that the violent acts of Short were not foreseeable. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The court of appeals concluded that Park Nicollet owed a duty to Short as his healthcare provider. With respect to Short’s wife and children, the court of appeals concluded that Park Nicollet may “owe a duty based on its own conduct that created a foreseeable risk of harm,” and there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether familicide was a foreseeable risk.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether an outpatient mental healthcare provider may be held liable for failing to foresee violence from a patient who was never violent or made violent threats; and (2) whether an outpatient healthcare provider may be held liable for a patient’s violent acts absent a special relationship with either the patient or the victims. (Hennepin County)

 

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

Jennifer Schroeder, et al., Appellants vs. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, Respondent – Case No. A20-1264: Appellants are persons who have been convicted of felonies and were, at the time they commenced this action, completing their sentences on probation, parole, or supervised release. In 2019, appellants sued Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon in his official capacity, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory scheme that denies them the right to vote. See Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subds. 1, 2 (2020) (providing that the voting rights of felons are automatically restored upon discharge of the conviction). Appellants allege that there is no justification for disenfranchising persons living in the community on probation, parole, or supervised release, and they assert that the statutory scheme has a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

 

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the summary judgment motion of the Secretary of State and dismissed appellants’ complaint with prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals held that section 609.165, subdivisions 1 and 2, do not violate the right-to-vote provisions in Article VII, Section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution; the equal protection principle arising under Article I, Section 2, of the Minnesota Constitution; or the Due Process Clause in Article I, Section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented concern the constitutionality of section 609.165, subdivisions 1 and 2, and the standard that applies to appellants’ claims—specifically, whether the court should apply heightened rational-basis review, strict scrutiny, or “standard rational-basis review or the balancing test applicable to laws that burden the right to vote.” (Ramsey County)

 

Vaundell Duwayne Kingbird, Appellant/Cross-Respondent vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant – Case No. A19-1850: In May 2010, the State of Minnesota charged Vaundell Kingbird with several offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, for possessing a BB gun. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kingbird pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the State dismissed the other charges. The district court accepted Kingbird’s guilty plea, imposed a 60-month, stayed sentence, and placed him on probation. In August 2011, the district court revoked Kingbird’s probation and executed his sentence.

 

In 2016, the supreme court held that an air-powered BB gun is not a “firearm” under the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute. State v. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. 2016). The State later filed a motion to vacate Kingbird’s conviction and dismiss the charge. The district court vacated Kingbird’s conviction and sentence and dismissed the charge.

 

In July 2019, Kingbird filed an amended petition for an order declaring him eligible for compensation based on exoneration. There is a 2-year statute of limitations for such petitions. Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 2 (2020). In addition, in order to be eligible for such compensation, a person must prove, among other things, that “a court” has “vacated, reversed or set aside a judgment of conviction on grounds consistent with innocence.” Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(b)(1)(i) (2020). The definition of “[o]n grounds consistent with innocence” includes that “the judgment of conviction was vacated or reversed or a new trial was ordered, and there is any evidence of factual innocence.” Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(c)(2) (2020). The district court denied Kingbird’s petition. The court of appeals affirmed.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the supreme court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because Kingbird’s petition was not timely under Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 2; and (2) whether the requirement in Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(c)(2), that “there is any evidence of factual innocence,” is met when an appellate court rules that the petitioner’s conduct was not a crime after the petitioner was convicted. (Itasca County)

 

Monday, December 6, 2021

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

Joseph Walsh, Appellant, Don Lorge, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A20-1083: Appellants, Mille Lacs County Attorney Joseph Walsh and Mille Lacs County Sheriff Don Lorge, along with Mille Lacs County itself, are defendants in a federal lawsuit brought by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have interfered with and refused to recognize the Band’s law-enforcement jurisdiction over the Band’s reservation lands. Shortly after the federal lawsuit began in 2017, appellants successfully requested defense and indemnification of some of their expenses and attorney fees from Mille Lacs County under the Municipal Tort Claims Act. Then in 2019, appellants contacted the Minnesota Attorney General’s office to request that respondent the State of Minnesota indemnify them pursuant to the State Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736 (2020), which provides that the State shall “defend, save harmless, and indemnify any employee of the state” from suit when the employee’s alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the suit were performed “within the scope of [their] employment.” Id., subd. 9. Appellants requested that the State indemnify them for costs and fees already incurred and to be incurred in the future. The Attorney General’s office denied appellants’ request, reasoning that appellants are not “employee[s] of the state,” but instead are employees of Mille Lacs County.

 

Appellants then brought this action in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to indemnification under the State Tort Claims Act, an order directing the State to pay their future legal expenses in the federal case, and damages to compensate them for past legal expenses in the federal case. The State moved to dismiss appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing chiefly that appellants are not employees of the state. The district court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether county attorneys and sheriffs are “employee[s] of the state” for purposes of the State Tort Claims Act. (Ramsey County)

 

Aaron J. Harkins, Respondent vs. Grant Park Association, Appellant – Case No. A20-0937: Appellant Grant Park Association operates a common interest community under the Association’s bylaws and the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act (MCIOA), Minn. Stat. §§ 515B.1-101 to 515B.4-118 (2020). Respondent Aaron Harkins owns a condominium unit in the Grant Park complex. He initiated a lawsuit after the Association refused to provide him with contact information for the members of the Association.

 

This appeal concerns whether the Association must provide Harkins with member e-mail addresses. The district court granted the Association’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The court of appeals concluded that the Association’s compilation of member e-mail addresses may constitute a “record” that is “required to be made available to unit owners under Minn. Stat. § 515B.3‑118.” The court of appeals also concluded that Harkins pleaded a sufficient claim for breach of contract based on the Association’s bylaws.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Harkins is entitled to the e-mail addresses of the members of the Association under the MCIOA or the Association’s bylaws. (Hennepin County)

 

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Omar Nur Hassan, Appellant – Case No. A21-0453: Following a jury trial, appellant Omar Hassan was convicted of first-degree premediated murder and attempted first-degree premediated murder. The district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release for first-degree premediated murder and to a concurrent sentence of 240 months for attempted first-degree premediated murder.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the State is sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts; and (2) whether the lifetime sentence without the possibility of release violates the Minnesota Constitution. (Hennepin County)

 

Nonoral: Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC, Relator vs. County of Washington, Respondent – Case No. A21-0825: Relator Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC (“Chambers”) filed timely property tax petitions contesting the assessment of certain property in Washington County that it owns and uses as a self-storage facility, for the January 2, 2016, and January 2, 2017 assessments. Chambers alleged that the subject property was both overvalued (that is, that its assessed value was higher than its actual market value) and statutorily unequally assessed compared to similar properties. The petitions were consolidated and transferred to the tax court.

 

Prior to trial, Chambers moved for several forms of relief. First, it moved to compel the County to respond to its requests for discovery, which sought information relating to the methodology used in the assessment of other property used as self-storage facilities in the County. The tax court denied the motion to compel, concluding that the requested information was not relevant to the claims Chambers asserted or was not proportional to those claims. Chambers also moved to amend its petition to include state and federal constitutional claims of unequal assessment. The tax court denied the motion as untimely and futile, reasoning that Chambers had timely pled a statutory claim of unequal assessment, that adding constitutional claims would not entitle it to any additional remedy, and that the additional claims did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Finally, Chambers moved to compel the attendance of the Washington County Assessor—upon whom Chambers had been unable to serve a subpoena because the assessor was working from home during the pandemic—as a hostile witness at trial. The tax court denied that motion, concluding that it did not have authority to compel attendance of a witness who had not been served with a subpoena, and that the assessor’s anticipated testimony was not relevant to the claims at trial.

 

Following the trial, the tax court concluded that Chambers failed to meet its burden of showing that the property was unequally assessed or that it was overvalued. Instead, the tax court found that the property was undervalued—in other words, the assessed value was lower than the actual market value—and ordered the assessment to be increased. Chambers brought a motion for amended findings and a new trial, which the tax court denied (with the exception of correcting a clerical error).

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the tax court should have granted Chambers’ motion to compel discovery; (2) whether the tax court should have granted Chambers’ motion to amend; (3) whether the tax court should have disclosed the county assessor’s home address or compelled their appearance at trial; and (4) whether the tax court erred in its conclusion that Chambers did not demonstrate unequal assessment. (Minnesota Tax Court)

 

Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Morice Laroy Dixon, Appellant – Case No. A21-0205: The State charged appellant Morice Laroy Dixon with fifth-degree possession of marijuana. The criminal complaint did not allege that scientific testing was conducted to determine whether the substance Dixon possessed contained a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Such a concentration distinguishes marijuana from industrial hemp. Dixon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that without a definitive scientific test result, the complaint failed to establish probable cause to believe he possessed marijuana. Persuaded by Dixon’s argument, the district court dismissed the complaint.

 

On appeal, the State argued the district court erred when it dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals concluded that on a motion to dismiss a marijuana charge for lack of probable cause, the State is not required to present a definitive scientific test result if other evidence establishes probable cause to believe the substance is marijuana. Consequently, the court of appeals reversed and remanded.

 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the standard for probable cause to charge fifth-degree possession of marijuana can be met without a definitive scientific test result showing that the substance contains the statutorily required concentration of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. (Hennepin County)