Opinions
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
RELEASED SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A23-0571 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Paul Scott Seeman, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
1. To satisfy the offender’s initial burden of production under Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, subdivision 3 (2024), an affidavit challenging a restitution award must specify, for each item, whether the challenge pertains to the amount of loss supporting the award, to the appropriateness of awarding restitution for that item, or both.
2. A remand to district court is appropriate to allow the parties to comply with our interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subdivision 3 (2024).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A25-0058 Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent.
Tax Court.
1. Under Minnesota Statutes section 290.191, subdivision 5(j) (2024), which prescribes that “[r]eceipts from the performance of services must be attributed to the state where the services are received,” the term “received” is not limited to receipt by a direct customer.
2. Under the unique circumstances of this case, and because the taxpayer failed to meet its burden to prove that the Commissioner of Revenue’s tax assessment was invalid, the tax court did not err by granting summary judgment to the Commissioner.
Affirmed. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
A23-1048 Hook & Ladder Apartments, L.P., Respondent, vs. Nichole Nalewaja, Appellant,
John Doe, et al., Defendants.
Court of Appeals.
1. The common law rule that a landlord who accepts rent with knowledge of a tenant’s breach waives the right to evict based on that breach applies equally to private and publicly subsidized tenancies.
2. Whether a landlord has accepted rent for the purpose of the waiver-by-acceptance doctrine is a question of fact that is determined based on the totality of the circumstances, including a landlord’s conduct after a rental payment is made.
Reversed and remanded. Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A24-1189 In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement by and Between Janet E.
Johnson, Settlor, and Paul Johnson, Successor Trustee, dated July 15, 1998; In the
Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement by and Between Carroll A. Johnson,
Settlor, and Paul Johnson, successor Trustee, dated July 15, 1998; Nancy Patock and
Susan Gerhardt, Beneficiaries, Respondents, and Paul Johnson, Successor Trustee,
Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
1. The district court’s order requiring the trustee to restore real property to two
family trusts is not an order that “grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to dissolve, an
injunction” under Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 103.03(b), and therefore it
is not immediately appealable under that rule.
2. The district court’s order removing the trustee from two family trusts and
appointing a successor trustee is not an order that “grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to
dissolve, an injunction” under Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 103.03(b), and
therefore it is not immediately appealable under that rule.
Affirmed. Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
SPECIAL RELEASE OPINION - SEPTEMBER 22, 2025
A24-0694 Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable John P. Dehen.
1. A judge does not commit misconduct by making findings of fact, reaching a legal conclusion, or applying the law as understood by the judge unless the judge acts contrary to clear and determined law and the error is egregious, made in bad faith, or made as part of a pattern or practice of legal error.
2. A judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, when clear and determined law proscribes such actions and the judge’s contrary position therefore represents egregious error.
3. A judge does not violate Rule 2.3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct by making rulings in proceedings under Minnesota Statutes chapter 257D, even if those rulings are erroneous, when those rulings are neither foreclosed by clear and determined law nor the product of actual bias or prejudice.
4. A judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by conducting a remote calendar from a moving car in order to be able to travel to attend a family function.
5. Censure and suspension from judicial duties for nine months (or from the practice of law for a term equal to the balance of the judicial suspension if the judge ceases to be a judge before the term of judicial suspension ends) without pay is warranted for a judge who violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, and by improperly presiding over a remote court calendar while riding in a moving vehicle.
6. A public reprimand as an attorney is warranted for a judge who engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, and by improperly presiding over a remote court calendar while riding in a moving vehicle.
Per Curiam.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.