OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, May 21, 2025

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.

A23-0149   Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov, Appellant, vs. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory Fitness
                    Minneapolis-Uptown, Respondent.
                    Court of Appeals.
          A contractual provision that shields a party from future liability for their own negligent acts is subject to strict construction and is enforceable only when the provision clearly and unequivocally states the parties’ intent that the contract shift liability for the party’s own negligent acts.  If a contract includes two clauses that both contain liability-shifting language, those two clauses must be read together to determine whether the entire document manifests a clear and unequivocal intent to encompass liability arising from acts of negligence.
          Affirmed.  Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
          Took no part, Justice Anne K. McKeig, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy, Justice Theodora  
          K. Gaïtas. 
          Acting Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.
 
 
A24-0548   Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co., Relators
A24-0549  (A24-0548). Bobby Lykins, by John Hoscheid, conservator, Relator, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,
                   Respondents (A24-0549).
                   Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
          1.   The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals has discretion under Minnesota Statutes section 176.521, subdivision 3 (2024), to set aside a workers’ compensation award made upon a settlement that is not valid under section 176.521, subdivision 1(a) (2024).
          2.   Substantial evidence in the employee’s petition to set aside an award supported a prima facie showing that the employee was an incapacitated person when he signed agreements to settle his workers’ compensation claims.
          3.   Minnesota Statutes section 176.092, subdivision 3 (2024), does not apply when the employee already has a conservator.
          4.   In a workers’ compensation proceeding involving allegations that an employee was an incapacitated person when they signed a workers’ compensation settlement, the workers’ compensation courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether the employee was incapacitated.
          Affirmed in part; vacated in part.  Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
 

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

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.

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

FILED Tuesday, May 13, 2025

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

 
Granted
 
1.         Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for an Order Directing Entry of New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale
            Certificate No. 112938 – Foster – A24-0632

  
Issue Granted:  Does a holder of a sheriff’s certificate of sale from a mortgage foreclosure waive its right to contest a junior creditor’s redemption as taught by this Court’s opinions in Clark, Orr, Johnson, Grant and Leland when it retained the funds tendered by the junior creditor?
 
 
2.         State of Minnesota vs. Dylan Stephen Gaul – A24-0555
 
Issues Granted:  (1) Does the sender of an email have a reasonable expectation of privacy and a right against government trespass in that email under the federal and Minnesota constitutions, at least until it reaches its destination? (2) Did the district court’s order rely on clearly erroneous findings, most importantly that the state proved that the Owatonna School District searched Gaul’s email after it landed in the student’s inbox when the only evidence related to the timing of the search was the Information Technology Director’s testimony that he did not know whether the search occurred before or after the email was received? (3) Even if the district court did not clearly err by finding that Gaul’s email was searched after it was received in the student’s inbox, did Gaul have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the email conversation even though the recipient was a student using a student-owned account?
 
Granted/Stayed
 
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Lionell Bailey – A23-1301
 
Issue:  Under circumstantial evidence review, when the accusing witness admits facts that offer a reasonable alternative to guilt, but do not plainly negate the verdict, are such circumstances properly excluded from review?
 
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Firkus, A23-0973.
 
Denied
 
4.            Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company vs. Kalesnikoff Lumber Company, Ltd., Kalesnikoff Mass Timber, Inc., Weekes Forest Products Inc. –
               A24-1122
5.            Gregory Avery, Jr. vs. State of Minnesota, Adrian Scott LaFavor Montez, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, #1A Lifesafer of Minnesota, Inc., et al.
                – A24-0596
6.            In the matter of a Potentially Dangerous Dog declaration involving a black, tan & white colored Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka) dog
               identified as “Judas” – A24-0374
7.            In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mile Post 7 West Ridge Railroad Relocation, Dam
               Extensions, and Stream Mitigation Project, Lake County, Minnesota – A24-0597
8.            Joyce Wolling vs. Grace Ouyang, Allina Health System, Physician’s Group of New Ulm, Ltd. – A24-0970
9.            State of Minnesota vs. Adam Eldon Switala – A24-0354
10.          State of Minnesota vs. Andre Antonio Walker Hansbrough – A24-0183
11.          State of Minnesota vs. Beth Marie Coolbroth – A24-0407
12.          State of Minnesota vs. Devin Dion Tillman – A24-0734
13.          State of Minnesota vs. Jose Francisco Aplicano-Ramos – A24-0165
14.          State of Minnesota vs. Luther Boris Cousette – A24-0660
15.          State of Minnesota vs. Peter Michael Dziuk – A23-1856
16.          State of Minnesota vs. Roseline Pierre Blanc – A25-0196
17.          State of Minnesota vs. Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky – A24-0232
18.          State of Minnesota vs. Tremayne Isaiah Colon – A24-0288
19.          Thomas P Shoemaker vs. Jason A Duenes, Jacob P Duenes, et al. – A24-1019
20.          Timothy Michaels vs. Fresh Vine Wine, Inc. – A24-0690
21.          United Christian Fellowship Church, et al. vs. Spire Credit Union, Jennifer L. Urban, et al. – A24-0718