EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
March 2026
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, March 2, 2026
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
Sustainable 9, LLC d/b/a Sustainable 9 Design + Build, Respondent, vs. Jacqueline Coleman, Appellant, Riverland Bank, Defendant, John Doe, et al., Defendants – Case No. A24-1548: General contractor Sustainable 9, LLC contracted with Jacqueline Coleman to construct a residential home. It later perfected a mechanic’s lien on the property for work and materials it provided in connection with that construction. Sustainable 9 then filed a civil complaint in district court seeking to enforce the lien through foreclosure. In its complaint, Sustainable 9 also claimed that Coleman breached the construction contract by failing to pay for the construction work it had performed. Coleman filed counterclaims alleging Sustainable 9 breached the construction contract and was negligent by failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its work.
Coleman’s negligence claim and both breach of contract claims were tried before a jury. By special verdict, the jury found Coleman breached the contract with Sustainable 9 and caused Sustainable 9 damages of $94,951.89. The jury also found Sustainable 9 breached the contract, but the breach caused Coleman no damage. Finally, the jury found Sustainable 9 or the contractors working on the project under Sustainable 9 were negligent and that negligence caused $278,622 in damages to Coleman for which Sustainable 9 is responsible.
After the jury rendered its verdict, Sustainable 9’s foreclosure action was resolved at a bench trial. The district court found that Sustainable 9 has a mechanic’s lien in the amount of the $94,951.89 breach-of-contract jury verdict. It determined that the lien amount has been offset by the negligence damages owed to Coleman, but it concluded Sustainable 9 is entitled to attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements reasonably needed to enforce the lien because the offset did not void the lien. The court rejected Coleman’s request to apply the common-law doctrine of recoupment to negate the lien. Ultimately, the court awarded Sustainable 9 attorney’s fees of $46,000 and costs of $16,500 for prosecution of its successful mechanics lien claim.
The court of appeals affirmed. It held that the jury’s finding that Sustainable 9’s negligence caused $278,622 in damages to Coleman does not entitle Coleman to recoupment of Sustainable 9’s mechanic’s lien because Sustainable 9’s duty of care under tort law was independent of its obligations under the construction contract.
The supreme court granted review on the following issues: (1) whether the affirmative defense of recoupment limits or bars a mechanic’s lien when the defense arises out of the lien claimant’s negligence; and (2) whether damages caused by defective construction in excess of the alleged lien amount preclude an award of a mechanic’s lien and bar recovery of statutory costs and disbursements under Minn. Stat. § 514.14. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
Keith D Hagfors, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sara E Hagfors, Appellant, vs. Fairview Health Services, et al., Respondents, University of Minnesota, Respondent, University of Minnesota Physicians, Respondent – Case No. A24-1539: On April 9, 2021, Sara E Hagfors passed away at M Health Fairview St. Joseph’s Hospital, allegedly as a result of respondents’ medical malpractice. On March 23, 2024, Keith D Hagfors (Hagfors) petitioned the district court to be appointed as the trustee for the next of kin of his wife. On April 4, 2024, before the district court acted on his petition to appoint him as his wife’s trustee, Hagfors served a summons and complaint alleging the wrongful death of his wife upon respondents. The complaint recited that Hagfors had petitioned the district court for appointment as trustee. On April 8, 2024, the district court appointed Hagfors as trustee for his deceased wife. On April 9, 2024, the three-year statute of limitations to commence a wrongful death action expired. That same day, Hagfors alleges that he filed, but did not serve, the wrongful death action. On May 22, 2024, Hagfors served respondents a second time with the same summons and complaint.
Respondents sought dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that because Hagfors had failed to commence the wrongful death action as the appointed trustee before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motions to dismiss, determining that Hagfors served the summons and complaint on the respondents before being appointed as his wife’s trustee and that he, at that time, lacked standing to commence a wrongful death action on his wife’s behalf. Additionally, because the statute of limitations had expired on April 9, 2024—before Hagfors served respondents in his capacity as trustee—the district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Hagfors appealed to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the wrongful death action was not timely commenced by a trustee.
The supreme court granted review on the issue of whether Minn. Stat. § 573.02 makes trustee appointment a condition precedent to commencing a wrongful death action. (Ramsey County).
Wednesday, March 4, 2026
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee LaFlex, Appellant – Case Nos. A24-1417, A25-1371: A Crow Wing County grand jury indicted appellant Michael Lee LaFlex with first-degree premeditated murder. Before trial, LaFlex filed a suppression motion, arguing there were no exigent circumstances when a police officer seized his cellphone without a warrant. The district court denied the suppression motion and scheduled a jury trial. After the parties presented their evidence, the district court instructed the jury, without objection, that if the jurors found LaFlex guilty of first-degree premeditated murder they should not consider whether LaFlex had committed heat-of-passion manslaughter. The jury found LaFlex guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court imposed a life sentence. LaFlex filed a direct appeal, which was stayed to allow him to pursue postconviction relief. In his postconviction petition, LaFlex requested a hearing under Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1960), alleging that one or more jurors committed misconduct by prejudging the case midtrial and violating the district court’s instructions prohibiting the jurors from discussing the case among themselves prior to deliberations. The district court denied LaFlex’s petition.
LaFlex’s brief presents the following issues: (1) whether the State proved that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of LaFlex’s cellphone, and if not, whether LaFlex’s conviction must be reversed; (2) whether the court reversibly erred by prohibiting the jurors from considering whether LaFlex had committed heat-of-passion manslaughter until they had reached a verdict on first-degree murder; and (3) whether a Schwartz hearing must be held because LaFlex established a prima facie case that one or more jurors committed misconduct by prejudging the case midtrial and violating the court’s instructions prohibiting intrajury discussions about the case. (Crow Wing County)
Nonoral: Jennifer Williams, Respondent, vs. Delta Air Lines, Inc., and ACE USA, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Relators – Case No. A25-1711: Jennifer Williams (respondent employee) claims two dates of injury resulting from her employment as a flight attendant with relator Delta Air Lines (and its predecessor) both of which pertain to the employer’s requirement that Williams wear the Passport Plum uniform. The November 12, 2019 date of injury relates to the employee’s alleged skin reactions from wearing the Passport Plum uniform. The January 29, 2020 date of injury relates to alleged breathing issues the employee experienced when in close proximity to other flight attendants wearing the Passport Plum uniform.
Williams filed a claim petition on December 23, 2020, regarding those two dates of injury against Delta Air Lines and its insurer. After a hearing, the compensation judge determined that Williams had not suffered work related injuries based on the opinions of relators’ medical expert. The compensation judge also found Williams’s testimony was not credible. The compensation judge denied Williams’s claims. Williams appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA).
The WCCA concluded that the compensation judge’s denial of the claim is manifestly contrary to the evidence because relators’ medical expert had not reviewed evidence that objectively indicated a causal connection between the uniform and the employee’s condition and because relators’ medical expert relied on facts contrary to those found by the compensation judge. Absent that medical opinion, the WCCA concluded, the compensation judge’s factual findings indicate that the employee did meet her burden to show she suffered occupational injury on November 12, 2019. The WCCA reversed and remanded for determination of benefits.
Regarding the January 29, 2020 injury, the WCCA vacated the compensation judge’s denial and remanded, directing the compensation judge to review the existing record, apply the appropriate standard for a workplace exposure injury, and determine whether the employee met her burden of proof for the claimed January 29, 2020 work injury.
The WCCA upheld the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s testimony is not credible, but the WCCA concluded that the compensation judge limited its credibility finding to the employee’s assertion of causation.
On appeal to the supreme court, relators Delta Air Lines and its insurer present the following issues: (1) whether the WCCA erred in reversing and vacating the compensation judge’s findings and order, when the compensation judge’s conclusion was supported by at least substantial evidence, viewing the entire record as a whole; (2) whether the WCCA’s reversal of the compensation judge’s choice between conflicting experts was improper, where the compensation judge’s chosen expert found that the chemical makeup of the Delta uniforms was not capable of causing the reactions claimed; (3) whether the WCCA erred in finding that the compensation judge could not rely on the opinion of relator’s medical expert as it lacked foundation; and (4) whether the WCCA wrongly disregarded or improperly curtailed the compensation judge’s finding that the respondent’s testimony was not credible as to both the nature of her claimed injuries, as well as the cause of her claimed injuries. (Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Thursday, March 5, 2026
Mitchell Hamline School of Law – Saint Paul, Minnesota
Troy Olds, Appellant, vs. City of Moorhead, Respondent – Case No. A24-2001: Appellant Troy Olds was employed by respondent City of Moorhead, from 2012 until 2020, as an engineering technician in the City’s engineering department. In 2020, the City terminated his employment after a third-party investigation concluded that his “continuing angry and volatile behavior adversely impacts the work environment” and noted that other employees were concerned about workplace safety because of his potential to engage in angry, escalating behavior. Later, Olds sued, asserting that the City had violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), Minn. Stat. § 181.932, by terminating his employment in retaliation for him making reports about conduct that did not comply with construction contracts or plans.
Following discovery, the City moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the burden-shifting framework set forth for discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Olds could not show that the City’s proffered reason for the termination was a pretext for retaliation. Under that framework, which is to be used when there is no direct evidence of discrimination, the first step is for the employee to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. At the second step, the burden of production shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason why it took an adverse employment action. At the third step, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered reason is pretextual. Hanson v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 972 N.W.2d 362, 373 (Minn. 2022).
Olds opposed summary judgment, arguing that the McDonnell Douglas framework should not apply to his whistleblower claim and asserting that genuine disputes of fact precluded summary judgment. The district court granted the City’s motion. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that: (a) caselaw supports the application of the McDonnell Douglas framework to claims under the MWA; (b) applying McDonnell Douglas to MWA claims is not unconstitutional; and (c) it was appropriate to apply McDonnell Douglas to Olds’s claims because he did not provide direct evidence that the City acted with retaliatory animus. The court of appeals also concluded that the district court appropriately granted summary judgment.
The supreme court granted review of the following issues: (1) whether analysis of the statutory elements of a claim is the appropriate analysis at summary judgment; (2) whether the McDonnell Douglas framework requires weighing of evidence in violation of Minn. R. Civ. P. 56 and the Minnesota Constitution; and (3) whether satisfying the statutory elements of the claim presented at summary judgment can be both direct and circumstantial. (Clay County)
Monday, March 9, 2026
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Derrick Lamon Johnson, Appellant – Case No. A25-0709: Appellant Derrick Lamon Johnson was indicted with first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting. After a jury trial, Johnson was found guilty of both counts and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.
On direct appeal to the supreme court, Johnson raises the following issues: (1) whether Johnson’s convictions must be reversed because the district court violated his right to present a complete defense by barring him from raising an alternative-perpetrator defense; (2) whether the district court erred in categorizing certain defense evidence as alternative-perpetrator evidence when it was evidence to support Johnson’s not guilty plea and to rebut the State’s theory of the case or alternatively, if the evidence was alternative perpetrator evidence, whether Johnson’s convictions must be reversed because the district court violated his right to present a complete defense by barring him from raising an alternative-perpetrator defense; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for a mistrial. (Hennepin County)
Keith Hapana Crow, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A24-0902: A Redwood County grand jury indicted appellant Keith Hapana Crow with several offenses, including first-degree felony murder. The indictment alleged both principle and aiding and abetting criminal liability. A jury found Crow guilty of first-degree felony murder, and the district court imposed a life sentence. In January 2024, Crow filed a preliminary application under the Felony Murder Accomplice Review Act. The district court summarily denied Crow’s preliminary application, concluding that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Crow, 730 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2007), determined that Crow either caused the death of the victim or intentionally aided his codefendants in causing the death of the victim.
Crow’s brief presents the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion because the Minnesota Supreme Court did not find that Mr. Crow caused the death of the victim or that Mr. Crow intentionally aided his codefendants in causing the death of the victim. (Redwood County)