Court of Appeals 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, OCTOBER 13, 2025

A25-0163 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee Vick, Appellant.
Clay County District Court, Hon. Tammy L. Merkins.
When the state relies on a business record to establish the amount and items of restitution, Minn. R. Evid. 1101(c) allows the state to establish foundation for the record under Minn. R. Evid. 803(6) by showing, through testimony, affidavit, or proper attestation of the record custodian or other qualified witness, that (1) the records were kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, (2) it was a regular practice of the business to make the records, and (3) the records were made at or near the time by or based on information from a person with knowledge of the material recorded therein.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Sarah I. Wheelock.

A25-0304 Randy Dale Sixta, Appellant, vs. Lincoln County Sheriff's Office, Respondent.
Lincoln County District Court, Hon. Michelle A. Dietrich
The phrase “adjudicated as a mental defective” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2024) includes individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others.
Affirmed. Judge Jon Schmidt.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Judge Francis J. Connolly.

A24-2003 In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown.
City of Minneapolis.
A peace officer’s unauthorized use of a choke hold, as proscribed by Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 3(a)(1) (2024), may constitute a violation of a legal standard and amount to malfeasance in office for purposes of a city’s denial of defense and indemnification under Minnesota Statutes section 466.07, subdivision 1 (2024).
Affirmed. Judge Keala C. Ede.