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, March 15, 2023


A21-1523        In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brian Lee Flowers, Appellant.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1.          The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not implicated when the State provides a process for an incarcerated defendant to communicate with counsel on an unrecorded phone line, and the defendant instead chooses to communicate with counsel or share defense strategies with a third party by a method the defendant knows is recorded.
            2.          The court of appeals properly granted the State’s petition for a writ of prohibition because the district court was unauthorized by law to order the State to implement a taint team when the Sixth Amendment was not implicated and enforcement of the district court’s order would result in injury to the State for which there would be no adequate remedy.
            Affirmed. Justice G. Barry Anderson.
A21-0275        State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Joel Clarence Velisek, Respondent.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1.          Minnesota’s statute prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle by a person whose driver’s license is cancelled or denied as inimical to public safety, Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5 (2022), is enforceable on private property.
            2.          Because the defendant sought appellate review of the district court’s dispositive pretrial ruling through Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, this court’s interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5, requires reversal of the court of appeals’ holding, which results in reinstatement of the defendant’s convictions.
            Reversed. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
A21-1001        Taquinia Kokela Douglas, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1.          Under the plain language of the possession of shoplifting gear statute, Minnesota Statutes section 609.521(b) (2022), an “instrument designed to assist in shoplifting or defeating an electronic article surveillance system” means any item produced with special intentional adaptation to assist the defendant in shoplifting or defeating an electronic article surveillance system.
            2.          The evidence presented by the State that appellant covered security sensors on unpurchased items with aluminum foil to carry the unpurchased items out of the retail store without detection by the electronic article surveillance system is sufficient to support a conviction under section 609.521(b).
            Affirmed. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
A21-0929        In re the Petition for Reinstatement of Randall Fuller, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0180762.
                         Supreme Court.
            Reinstated. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.

A21-0878        In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Peder K. Davisson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0257461.
                         Supreme Court.
            Conditionally reinstated. Justice Natalie E. Hudson.

A22-0922        In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Grace I. Gardiner, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0282248.
                         Supreme Court.
            Suspended. Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
ADM10-8049             General Rules of Practice for the District Courts.
ADM09-8009              Supreme Court.
            Order promulgating amendments to the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts.
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, March 14, 2023

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)



  1.  In re State of Minnesota, State of Minnesota vs. Luis Alberto Martinez Ramirez – A22-1490

  Issue Granted: Did the Court of Appeals erroneously grant the state’s petition for a writ of prohibition where the district court properly followed legal precedent and the Rules of Criminal Procedure when it ordered the limited production of U.M.P.’s mental health records for in camera review?

  2.  State of Minnesota vs. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly – A22-0468

  Issue Granted: Ms. McNeilly was a practicing criminal defense attorney who became the subject of a criminal investigation.  Was the warranted search of her law office and computers, including over 1,500 privileged client files, constitutionally unreasonable when the police did nothing to protect the attorney-client and work product privileges and the warrants failed to particularize the items to be seized?

  3.  State of Minnesota vs. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen – A22-0105

  Issue Granted: Because criminal sexual conduct offenses involving a sleeping complainant usually occur in an area in which the complainant has an expectation of privacy, does the fact that the crime occurred in such an area make the defendant’s conduct significantly more serious than a typical criminal-sexual-conduct offense of this nature?


  4.  Husky Construction, Inc. vs. Gestion G. Thibault, Inc. a/k/a E2SH – A22-0467
  5.  Cheryl Orcutt vs. Jon Crews, et al. – A22-0548 
  6.  In re the Marriage of: Anita Marie Waters vs. Charles Matthew Waters – A23-0002
  7.  Qays Abdi Ahmed vs. State of Minnesota – A22-0506
  8.  Brenda Lutzke vs. Metropolitan Council, et al. – A22-0194
  9.  In re the Custody of K.S.A. and G.M.A., Catherine Easter, vs. Justin David Alyea – A22-0533
10.  State of Minnesota vs. Cameron Oneal Clark – A22-0009
11.  State of Minnesota vs. Terry Lee Banks, Bail Bonds Doctor, Inc. – A22-0774
12.  State of Minnesota vs. Trever Joseph Palodichuk – A22-0070 
13.  State of Minnesota vs. Christopher Lee Konakowitz – A21-1575 
14.  State of Minnesota vs. Jonathan Charles Kalvoda – A22-0295 
15.  State of Minnesota vs. Abdirahman Hussein Farah – A21-1582 
16.  State of Minnesota vs. Renard Lydell Carter – A22-0313 
17.  State of Minnesota vs. Clinton Roosevelt Delaney – A21-1737
18.  State of Minnesota vs. Michael Douglas Capshaw – A21-1694 
19.  State of Minnesota vs. Ronald Anthony Falk – A22-0193 
20.  In re the marriage of: Alison Lee Henry, f/k/a Alison Lee Underthun, f/k/a Alison Underthun-Meilahn vs. Peter Jason Meilahn – A22-0142
21.  State of Minnesota vs. Darren Ray Liimatainen – A22-0893
22.  Pariss Demond Wright vs. State of Minnesota – A22-0431
23.  George Cornelius Watkins vs. State of Minnesota – A22-0291
24.  Pamela Wilhelm vs. Fairview Health Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development – A22-0443

     Stay Vacated/Denied


   State of Minnesota vs. Patrick James Modtland – A21-0146

     Granted/Stayed – Filed March 3, 2023
  1.  In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.A.B. and B.J.J., Parents – A22-1145
  Issue Granted and Appeal Stayed Pending a Decision in In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent, A22-0589: Whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of Petitioner who is not a parent as defined in Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 25.