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 4, 2025

A24-1713 State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Appellant, vs David P Williams, doing business as Bear Track Outfitting Co. et al., Respondents Below, Mike's Holiday, Respondent.
Cook County District Court, Hon. Judge Steven B. Hanke.
Reasonable attorney fees and expenses awarded in an eminent domain proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 117.031(a) (2024) must relate to the work performed to obtain the final judgment or award for damages and may include fees incurred in defending an objection to the eminent domain proceeding.
Affirmed. Judge Diane B. Bratvold.

A24-1249 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jayshawn Jarmell Jones, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Andrew Gordon.
Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3) (2022), which prohibits the possession of a firearm without a serial number, does not violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to appellant’s possession of a privately made firearm without a serial number.
Affirmed. Judge Sarah I. Wheelock.

A25-0089 Shawn Drewicke, et al., Respondents, vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Appellant.
Traverse County District Court, Hon. Benjamin Wilcox.
1. Under Minnesota Statutes section 45.028, subdivision 2 (2024), which requires a plaintiff commencing an action under the substituted-service statute to file an affidavit of compliance “on or before the return day of the process, if any, or within further time as the court allows,” a district court may extend the time to file the affidavit
beyond the return day of the process.
2. We review a challenge to the district court’s decision to allow further time to file an affidavit of compliance for an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed. Judge Elizabeth G. Bentley.

Court of Appeals Opinions