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 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
A24-2031 Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau, Respondent, vs. GoodRx, Inc., Appellant.Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Laurie J. Miller.
Under the plain and unambiguous language of Minn. Stat. § 325F.784 (2024), a plaintiff has statutory standing to sue without alleging that they have suffered an injury in fact.
Affirmed. Judge Randall J. Slieter.
A24-0743 Demitrius Verros, Appellant, vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Respondent.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Jamie L. Cork.
In an action by an insured against an underinsured-motorist (UIM) insurer for UIM benefits, Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 8.03 does not require the insurer to assert, as an affirmative defense, a request to reduce damages by the amount of money that the insured has recovered pursuant to the UIM tortfeasor’s insurance policy.
Affirmed in part and remanded. Judge Keala C. Ede.