Supreme Court Opinions


IMPORTANT NOTICE

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.
 

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED OPINIONS

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


 

 

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, October 13, 2021

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



A20-1525        Daniel Bierbach, Respondent, vs. Digger’s Polaris, and State Auto/United Fire & Casualty Group, Relators.
                         Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
            1.   Because resolving a claim asserting that a conflict exists between federal law that prohibits cannabis possession and state law that requires an employer to pay for an injured employee’s reasonable and necessary medical treatment would require the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals to interpret and apply federal law, that court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the preemption issue presented by that claim.
            2.   The prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971, on the possession of cannabis preempts an order made under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law, Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1 (2020), that requires an employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical cannabis used to treat a work-related injury.
            Reversed.  Justice G. Barry Anderson
            Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich.



A20-1551        Susan K. Musta, Respondent, vs. Mendota Heights Dental Center & Hartford Insurance Group, Relators.
                         Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
            1.   Because resolving a claim asserting that a conflict exists between federal law that prohibits cannabis possession and state law that requires an employer to pay for an injured employee’s reasonable and necessary medical treatment would require the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals to interpret and apply federal law, that court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the preemption issue presented by that claim.
            2.   The prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971, on the possession of cannabis preempts an order made under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law, Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1 (2020), that requires an employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical cannabis used to treat a work-related injury.
            Reversed.  Justice G. Barry Anderson.
            Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich.

 
 
A20-0425        State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Larry Dale Taylor, Appellant.
                         Court of Appeals.
            A deputy sheriff’s expansion of a traffic stop by one question was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion of other criminal activity when the totality of the circumstances, and the rational inferences to be drawn from them, made him suspect that appellant may have been driving while impaired.
            Affirmed.  Justice Margaret H. Chutich.
            Dissenting, Justice Paul C. Thissen.
            Dissenting in part, Justice G. Barry Anderson.

  
 
A20-1221        Joseph Christen Thoresen, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                         Itasca County.
            1.   The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s claims asserting violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
            2.   Appellant’s claim that the grand jury indictment was insufficient and overly confusing is barred under the Knaffla rule.
            3.         Appellant’s claims that the district court committed plain error by failing to stop the prosecutor from allegedly misstating the evidence and by telling the jury what to believe during closing argument are barred under the Knaffla rule.
            4.   Appellant’s claim of judicial estoppel is barred under the Knaffla rule.
            5.   Appellant’s claim that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct is barred under the Knaffla rule.
            6.   Appellant did not meet his burden to show ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel.
            7.   Appellant’s claim that the evidence presented at the jury trial was insufficient to support his conviction is barred under the Knaffla rule and he is not entitled to additional testing of blood samples under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.1a(a) (2020).
            8.   Appellant’s claims that the search warrants were deficient and that he was interrogated in violation of his rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), are barred under the Knaffla rule.
            Affirmed.  Justice Paul C. Thissen.
 
 

 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 

 
ADM09-8006             Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
                                    Supreme Court.
            Order promulgating amendments to the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure to be effective October 8, 2021.
 
ADM10-8049             Rules of Criminal Procedure.
                                    Supreme Court.
            Order promulgating amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure to be effective October 8, 2021.
 


Opinion Sets

Opinion 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.

 


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS


NO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS RECENTLY FILED

 


ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

FILED Thursday, September 30, 2021


(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

1.         State of Minnesota vs. Mi-in-gun Justin Charette a/k/a Justin Marshall Critt – A20-1476 – Granted in part
2.         Amy Luann Seelye vs. State of Minnesota – A20-1459 – Denied
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Michael Anthony Lee – A20-0758 – Granted
4.         City of Cambridge vs. One Love Housing, LLC, et al. – A20-1313 – Denied
5.         Lawrence Silas Kostohryz vs. State of Minnesota – A20-1565 – Denied
6.         William O. Bradley vs. Cody J. Haislet, et al. – A20-1207 – Denied
7.         In re: Resolution Denying Citizen Petition for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment
            Worksheet for the Proposed Noble Hill Project – A21-0738 – Denied
8.         State of Minnesota vs. Timothy Lee Biby – A21-0204 – Denied
9.         In re the Custody of Derek Mausolf and Claire Mausolf, Nicholas Mausolf vs. Ashley Heglund – A20-1626 – Denied
10.       John Joseph Kotowski vs. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, et al.,
            Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections – A20-1621 – Denied
11.       State of Minnesota vs. Morice Laroy Dixon – A21-0205 – Granted
12.       State of Minnesota vs. Anthony Dale Klitzke – A20-0680 – Denied
13.       State of Minnesota vs. Ron Wesley Epps – A20-1151 – Granted
14.       Jason L. Gabbert vs. Minnesota Twins, LLC, et al. – A21-0317 – Denied
15.       State of Minnesota vs. Latese Capree Hudson – A20-0825 – Denied
16.       Raymond Kvalvog, et al. vs. Josh Lee, et al., Secura Insurance – A20-0693, A20-1587 – Denied
17.       In the Matter of Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for PolyMet Mining, Inc.,
            City of Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis County, Minnesota – A19-0115, A19-0134 – Denied
18.       S’Emaj Avyiair Okongwu vs. State of Minnesota – A20-1443 – Denied
19.       In re Emem Ufot Udoh, State of Minnesota vs. Emem Ufot Udoh – A21-0576, A21-0661 – Denied
20.       State of Minnesota vs. Barry Ishmael McReynolds – A20-1435 – Granted
           

STAYED PFR PENDING In re Welfare of Child of K.K. & K.M.R. – A20-1349, A20-1351


21.       In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K.E.S., M.W.C., and T.J.S., Parents – A20-1390 – Vacated/Denied