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, AUGUST 11, 2025

A24-1268 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Roald Dean Marth, Appellant.
McLeod County District Court, Hon. Jessica J.W. Maher.
The value of property obtained is not an element of theft by swindle under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2 (2014), but it determines the range of punishment under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3 (2014).
Affirmed; motion denied. Judge Diane B. Bratvold.

A24-1501 Life Time, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Zurich American Insurance Company, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Kristin Siegesmund.
1. Under an insurance policy providing “interruption by communicable disease” coverage for an insured’s losses that are “caused by order of an authorized governmental agency enforcing any law or ordinance regulating communicable diseases,” governmental shutdown orders were the causes of the insured’s losses for purposes of determining the number of occurrences under the policy, not the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Under an insurance policy providing interruption by communicable disease coverage that defines an occurrence as all losses “attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or a series of similar or related causes,” governmental shutdown orders issued by separate jurisdictions were not a “series,” whereas governmental shutdown orders issued within one jurisdiction were a “series.”
Reversed and remanded. Judge Elizabeth G. Bentley.

Court of Appeals Opinions