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, September 27, 2023


A21-1648       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Cory Lynden Stone, Appellant.
                        Court of Appeals.
            1.         Under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a) (2022), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, a group of disassembled and incomplete shotgun parts can be a “firearm”—an instrument designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by some explosive force.
            2.         The evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), despite the firearm being disassembled and incomplete.
           Affirmed. Justice Margaret H. Chutich.
           Dissenting, Justice Paul C. Thissen, Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea, Justice G. Barry Anderson.


Special Release Opinion Filed September 28, 2023

A21-0895     Almir Puce, Respondent, vs. City of Burnsville, MN., Appellant.
                      Court of Appeals
            1.       Minnesota Statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2c(a) (2022), is a codification by the Legislature of the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
            2.      The city’s park dedication fee has an “essential nexus,” as required by Minnesota Statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2c(a) (2022), because there is some logical connection between the imposed park dedication fee and the municipal purpose sought to be achieved by the fee, and has a “rough proportionality” as required by the same statute, because the city made an individualized determination that the fee is related to the impact of the proposed development.
            3.      The city complied with Minnesota Statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2b(e) (2022) because the city made a reasonable determination that it would need 5 percent of the gross land area of the development to maintain open space in proportion to city projections.
            Reversed and remanded. Justice Natalie E. Hudson
            Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice G. Barry Anderson, and Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.

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.


FILED Wednesday, September 27, 2023

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

(Issues are as Presented in the Petition for Review)


1.         In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Benson – A22-1840

Issues Granted:  (1) The judicial appeal panel and court of appeals both failed to answer petitioner’s claim of whether or not he has a right to self-representation.  (2) The court of appeals failed to answer how an attorney was allowed to represent petitioner without a record of proof of service, order of appointment, or certificate of representation.  (3) The court of appeals failed to address how alleged attorney was qualified to question experts in a civil proceeding after admitting he did not have the skill.

2.         Keegan James Rich Brouillette vs. State of Minnesota – A23-0020

Issue Granted:  Was Brouillette’s  postconviction petition challenging his conviction timely when it was filed within two years of the amended order resentencing him from a probationary term to a prison term?

3.         State of Minnesota vs. Michael Joseph Letourneau – A22-0570

Issue Granted:  Did the District Court plainly err in finding good cause had been shown to permit Letourneau to be brought to trial outside the time permitted under Minnesota’s Detainer Act (UMDDA), where the Court erroneously determined the date by which trial had to begin, the State had not established good cause for trial to begin beyond the correct date, let alone the Court’s erroneously-determined later date, and that Letourneau would have remained in custody during the time preceding the trial’s start date?


4.         State of Minnesota vs. Willie Coagar Skylark – A22-1167

Issue:  Petitioner Skylark requests that this Court review the July 3, 2023 Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision affirming his conviction in the Ramsey County District Court, the Hon. David Brown, presiding, for fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct (sexual contact — no force or coercion), based on its rejection of Skylark’s argument that the unobjected-to prosecution closing-argument that Skylark victim-shamed the complainant by testifying she was on multiple dating websites, and to her screen-name, which Skylark argued was misconduct constituting plain error and requiring a new trial.

         Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Portillo, No. A21-1621.

Lift Stay/Proceed with Briefing

5.         State of Minnesota vs. Earley Romero Blevins – A22-0432

Issues Granted:  (1) Under Minnesota law, does an individual who has been threatened with deadly force have a duty to retreat before resorting to non-physical force?  (2) If there is a duty to retreat before resorting to non-physical force, at what point in a conflict is the duty triggered?


6.          Desean Thomas n/k/a Pharaoh Amen El vs. State of Minnesota – A22-1328
7.          Hader Properties, LLC, et al. vs. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation – A22-1621
8.          James L. Lang, et al. vs. Flagship Bank Minnesota f/d/b/a Landmark Community Bank, N.A., et al., Eric Knight, Mark Eliot, et al., and
             John Doe, Mary Doe and XYZ Company, persons whose identities are not yet known – A22-1199
9.          Resolution Approving the Certification of Charges on the Property Tax Rolls of a Property – A23-0758
10.        State of Minnesota vs. Dale David Smith – A22-1715
11.        State of Minnesota vs. Eric David Haskins – A22-1804
12.        State of Minnesota vs. George Jerry Matlock – A22-0820
13.        State of Minnesota vs. Jonathan Gabriel Hernandez Silva – A22-1079
14.        State of Minnesota vs. Kaleffa Steven Mann – A22-1141
15.        State of Minnesota vs. Laurssia Keyair Likness – A22-1667
16.        State of Minnesota vs. Mark Allen Lacek – A22-0836
17.        State of Minnesota vs. Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James – A22-0977
18.        State of Minnesota vs. Pariss Demond Wright – A22-1109
19.        Teresa M. Hintze, et al. vs. Karen A. Hoese, et al., Chad Harwood, et al., Dale W. Hoese, et al. – A22-1533