Opinions
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
RELEASED AUGUST 19, 2026
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A24-1539 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.
Court of Appeals.
Appointment as trustee is a condition precedent to commencing a wrongful death action under Minnesota Statutes section 573.02.
Affirmed. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
A24-0594 Chad Loran Siegel, Appellant, vs. Drew Evans, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
Requiring a person to register as a predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, subdivision 1b(a)(1), based on a predatory offense for which the person was charged but subsequently acquitted by the district court’s entry of a judgment of acquittal at trial violates that person’s substantive due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.
Reversed and remanded. Justice Paul C. Thissen.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice Anne K. McKeig, Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
A24-1908 Ryan Grant, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. The reasonable-probability standard that we recently clarified in State v. Zielinski, 32 N.W.3d 847 (Minn. 2026), also applies to the denial of a petition to vacate a conviction under subdivision 6(e)(2) of the Act of May 19, 2023, ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, 2023 Minn. Laws 810, 864–68.
2. Because the court of appeals based its affirmance of the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition on a reasonable-probability standard that materially differs from the Zielinski reasonable-probability standard, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Zielinski.
Reversed and remanded. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
A24-0271 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicholas Norton Engel, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
1. When a suspect commits a new crime in response to law enforcement conduct that violates the Minnesota Constitution, a court should apply the four-factor attenuation test articulated in State v. Warndahl, 436 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. 1989), to determine whether the evidence of that crime is fruit of the poisonous tree that must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.
2. Applying the four-factor attenuation test, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of the evidence of appellant’s vehicular flight in response to a traffic stop that violated the Minnesota Constitution.
Affirmed. Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
Dissenting, Justice Paul C. Thissen.
ORDER
A26-0997 Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent,
Casey Carl, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.
Petition granted. Per Curiam.