Precedential Opinions

Under Minn. Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 136.01, the Court of Appeals issues a precedential opinion (formerly called "published opinions") only to clarify or develop the law. In deciding whether to issue a precedential opinion, the court considers multiple factors listed in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. (1)(b), including whether the case establishes a new principle or rule of law, clarifies existing case law, decides a novel issue involving a constitutional provision, statute, administrative rule or rule of court, or resolves a significant or recurring legal issue. Precedential opinions will be considered and used by courts faced with similar issues in the future, and they are published in books of caselaw found in most law libraries. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 1(f), parties may advise the court whether a precedential opinion would be helpful.

DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED MONDAY, JULY 13, 2026

A25-1985 James W. Honcik, Appellant, vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
S.I., Respondent.
Clay County District Court, Hon. Jade Rosenfeldt.
An uninsured motor vehicle under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (no-fault act), Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-.71 (2024), includes a motor vehicle for which no liability coverage is available because a tortfeasor is shielded by common-law official immunity.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Diane B. Bratvold.

A25-1678 In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification or Amendment of Appropriate Unit.
Bureau of Mediation Services.
1. Because the contested-case provisions in the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 14.63-.69 (2024), do not apply to the commissioner of mediation services, and the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01-.25 (2024) does not set forth a standard for appellate review, we apply the common-law standard for reviewing quasi-judicial decisions from the Bureau of Mediation Services.
2. To determine whether a position satisfies the “professional employee” definition under section 179A.03, subdivision 13(1) (2024), the “advanced knowledge” requirement in subdivision 13(1)(iv) requires the Bureau of Mediation Services to evaluate whether employees in that position have customarily engaged in a comprehensive course of study—distinct from a general postsecondary degree or on-the-job training—prior to beginning the position, and whether such advanced knowledge is required to perform the tasks of that position.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Elise Larson.

Court of Appeals Opinions