Supreme Court Opinions


Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.

Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail.  All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately.  Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address.  Please go to the Clerk of Appellate Courts page for instructions how to register your e-mail address.


Please visit the Minnesota State Law Library's Appellate Opinions Archive for previously published Supreme Court Opinions.

NOTE: If you are having trouble accessing the tabs on your mobile device, you may view all Opinions and Orders on a single page.


FILED Wednesday, May 25, 2022


A21-1095        Carlos Orlandos Smith, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                          Ramsey County.
            1.   The district court did not err by denying appellant’s claim under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2020), that it had improperly sentenced him on two convictions that were part of a single behavioral incident because the claim was without merit.
            2.   The law of the case doctrine bars appellant’s sentencing challenges.
            3.   Appellant forfeited review of his claim that the State failed to give proper notice of its intent to seek an upward durational departure under Minn. R. Crim. P. 7.03 and Minn. Stat. § 244.10, subd. 4 (2020), by failing to raise these arguments in his motion to the district court.
            Affirmed.  Justice G. Barry Anderson.

A20-0603        State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Barbara Ann Currin, Appellant.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1.   The plain language of the phrase “amount of economic loss sustained by the victim” in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1) (2020), requires district courts to consider the value of economic benefits, if any, a defendant conferred on a victim when calculating a restitution award.
            2.   The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the victim’s economic loss. 
            Affirmed.  Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
Opinion SetsOpinion sets contain all opinions and orders. The sets are compressed into files that must be unpacked before opening them.

Opinion Set in a Zipped Word Document 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.

Opinion Set in a Zipped Rich Text 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.


FILED Tuesday, May 17, 2022

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

1.         Almir Puce vs. City of Burnsville, MN – A21-0895 – Granted
2.         State of Minnesota vs. Rene Gabriel-Ramos – A20-0322 – Denied
3.         Elm Creek Courthome Association, Inc. vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company – A21-0964 – Denied
4.         In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota vs. Malachi Larenn Carter – A22-0184 – Denied
5.         Shantha Jayapathy vs. Paul Schnell, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections – A21-1184 – Denied
6.         State of Minnesota vs. Frederick Duane Fisher – A21-0358 – Denied
7.         John Schulz, et al. vs. Town of Duluth, Carol Danielson-Bille – A21-0733 – Denied
8.         State of Minnesota vs. Shawn Douglas Hager – A21-0229 – Denied
9.         Majed Issac Ijong vs. State of Minnesota – A21-0759 – Denied
10.       State of Minnesota vs. Michael Phillip Cloutier – A21-1270 – Granted
11.       State of Minnesota vs. Ryan Christopher Edner – A22-0230 – Denied
12.       State of Minnesota vs. Lidio Roque Rodriguez – A21-0697 – Denied
13.       State of Minnesota vs. Tyreese Eugene Roberson – A21-0585 – Granted/Stayed
14.       State of Minnesota vs. Christopher Floyd Boder – A21-0216 – Granted in part/Stayed
15.       Dr. Jane Doe, et al. vs. State of Minnesota, et al. – A22-0073 – Denied
16.       State of Minnesota vs. Gavin Patrick Meany – A20-1531 – Denied
17.       Herald Edward Liu vs. State of Minnesota – A21-1008 – Denied
18.       State of Minnesota vs. Mario Patino – A21-0581 – Denied
19.       In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, In the matter of the
            Hewitt L. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended – A22-0284 – Denied
20.       Adam Robert Hageman vs. State of Minnesota – A21-1003 – Denied