OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED Wednesday, July 24, 2024
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A22-1706 David Carl Hepfl, Respondent, vs. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a property owner would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain without payment a cabin and associated fixtures and furnishings paid for by the property owner’s former partner during their cohabitating, marriage-like relationship and intended for their shared use and enjoyment.
Affirmed. Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
Dissenting, Justice Margaret H. Chutich, Justice Anne K. McKeig.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
A23-1780 Kay "KT" Jacobs, Appellant, vs. City of Columbia Heights, et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals.
The petition to recall a member of a city council failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, the constitutional prerequisites to recall an elected municipal official, and consequently failed to lawfully trigger a special recall election under Minnesota Statutes section 410.20 (2022).
Reversed. Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
A23-0007 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jamal L. Smith, Appellant.
Hennepin County.
1. Appellant failed to show that the district court judge was biased.
2. Appellant failed to show that defense counsel was ineffective because counsel did not move to change venue.
3. Appellant’s claim that the grand and petit jury pools did not reflect a fair cross section of the community fails because he did not show that Black persons were underrepresented in the jury pool selection process or that any underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of appellant's prior bad acts because the evidence was admissible under the
Spreigl exception or as direct or corroborative evidence of a charged crime.
5. The only reasonable inference supported by the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, is that appellant fired the fatal shot.
Affirmed. Justice Margaret H. Chutich.
Concurring, Justice Paul C. Thissen, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
A22-1057 Fitness International, LLC, Appellant, vs. City Center Ventures, LLC, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. The doctrine of temporary frustration of purpose delineated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 269 is a justification for nonperformance of a contract that is recognized under Minnesota law in certain circumstances.
2. Summary judgment in favor of the landlord was appropriately granted because, even assuming that the doctrine of temporary frustration of purpose may be used as the basis for a breach-of-contract claim and not only as an affirmative defense, the commercial lease tenant’s obligation to perform under the lease agreement was merely suspended during the period of temporary frustration, not discharged.
Affirmed. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
Took no part, Justice Karl C. Procaccini, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.