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, FEBRUARY 2, 2026

A25-0258 In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jonathan George
A25-0616 Smith, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Theresa Couri.
A notice of filing of a “decision or order” under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 59.03
need not be of a final, appealable decision to trigger that rule’s timing requirements.
Affirmed. Chief Judge Jennifer L. Frisch.

A25-0527 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Todd Jeremy Thompson, Appellant.
Mahnomen County District Court, Hon. Judge Seamus Patrick Duffy.
Minnesota Statutes section 152.0263, subdivision 1(1) (Supp. 2023), is a civil/regulatory
statute, which the State of Minnesota lacks jurisdiction to enforce against an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe for the possession of cannabis flower occurring within the
territorial boundaries of the White Earth Reservation.
Reversed. Judge Francis J. Connolly.
Concurring specially, Judge Sarah I. Wheelock.

A25-0951 Weidner Apartment Homes, Appellant, vs. B. F., Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Ngoc Nguyen.
Minnesota Statutes section 484.014, subdivision 3(a)(5) (2024), is facially unconstitutional
because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by mandating that the district court expunge an eviction case three years after the eviction was ordered without a motion by any party.
Reversed. Judge JaPaul J. Harris.

Court of Appeals Opinions