Opinions
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
RELEASED MARCH 11, 2026
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A23-1762, A24-1296 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K., Parent.
Court of Appeals, Martin County.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants’ motion to permissively intervene in a Child in Need of Protection or Services action in juvenile court pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection Procedure 34.02.
2. A petition for third-party custody filed in juvenile court is non-cognizable and is instead properly construed as a petition for a transfer of legal and physical custody, which may only be filed by a party to the juvenile court action.
3. A holding in a court of appeals opinion that is advisory in nature and goes beyond the narrow issues implicated in the orders giving rise to the appeal falls outside the appropriate scope of appellate review and warrants this court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority, vacating that portion of the opinion.
Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
A25-0497 Theodore Lockhart, Sr., Relator, vs. Hennepin County, Respondent.
Tax Court.
1. The tax court had subject matter jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s case because each of the counts in the taxpayer’s complaint concerned the valuation of the subject property or the property tax assessment process, which are claims under Minnesota state tax law.
2. The tax court did not err in dismissing the four counts in the taxpayer’s complaint because each of those counts was within the scope of Minnesota Statutes section 278.01, which provides the exclusive remedy for such claims.
3. The tax court did not err when it dismissed the taxpayer’s valuation claim at trial because the taxpayer did not overcome the statutory presumption of validity of the county’s assessed value of the subject property.
Affirmed. Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A24-0067 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber.
Court of Appeals.
The balancing test established in Price v. Sheppard, 239 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1976), and affirmed in Jarvis v. Levine, 418 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1988), which requires a district court to find that an intrusive treatment is both necessary and reasonable before it can be administered to a civilly committed patient, adequately addresses whether the intrusive treatment is a “treatment necessary to preserve the life or health of any committed patient” under Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 6(b).
Affirmed. Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
Dissenting, Justice Karl C. Procaccini, Justice Paul C. Thissen, Justice Theodora K.
Gaïtas.