Opinions
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED AUGUST 27, 2025
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A24-1601 E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company & Subsidiaries, Relator, vs. Commissioner of
Revenue, Respondent.
Tax Court.
The tax court correctly found that the Commissioner of Revenue satisfied his burden under Minnesota Statutes section 290.20 (2024) by demonstrating that the general apportionment method in section 290.191 (2024) misrepresented appellant’s Minnesota activities, and that an alternative formula—excluding gross receipts but including net income from forward exchange contracts—fairly represented appellant’s Minnesota activities.
Affirmed. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
Took no part, Justice Paul C. Thissen.
A23-1524 Joel Armen Underwood, III., Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. When a district court order accurately informs a defendant of their legal obligations under the then-existing version of Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, subdivision 1(2), which prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence from possessing firearms or ammunition, and the Legislature later modifies those obligations by amending the statute, the State does not violate a defendant’s due process rights by later charging the defendant for a violation of the amended statute.
2. The crime of ineligible person in possession of a firearm, under Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, subdivision 1(2), does not require the State to prove the defendant’s knowledge of their ineligibility status, but rather their previous conviction of a crime of violence, as an element of the offense.
Affirmed. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
A23-0947 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Johnnie Lerma, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions do not bar retrial of a criminal defendant who requested and received a mistrial on all counts where the government did not induce, goad, or provoke the request for a mistrial.
Affirmed. Justice Paul C. Thissen.