Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions

Orders on Petitions for Further Review

Granted

1.  Fabyanske Westra Hart & Thomson PA vs. Western National Mutual Insurance Company – A25-1640

Issue: Whether the parties’ contractual agreement that the insurer may select counsel to provide a defense is overridden whenever the insurer reserves rights on the separate issue of indemnity coverage and the underlying litigation will resolve a fact affecting coverage, regardless of whether the insurer ever participates in litigating that fact.

2.  Housing First Minnesota vs. City of Corcoran; Housing First Minnesota vs. City of Dayton – A25-1220, A25-1221

Issues: (1) Whether Housing First may use the Minnesota Declaratory Judgments Act (the “Act”) to challenge the validity of the Cities’ building permit fee ordinances. (2) Whether Housing First’s claims challenging the Cities’ building permit fee ordinances as contrary to state law are barred by the separation of powers or political question doctrine.

3.  State of Minnesota vs. Charquandra Charnetta Henry – A25-0861

Issues: (1) What is the proper construction of the negligent-storage-of-a-firearm statute? (2) And, once the statute is properly construed, did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was the person who negligently stored or left the firearms found by police?

Grant/Vacate/Remand

4.  State of Minnesota vs. Jerson Manuel Montes Banegas – A25-0554

Issues: (1) The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict. To protect that right, all twelve jurors must unanimously agree that the State proved each criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt.

a. Whether it is plain error for a district court to not provide the jury with a specific unanimity instruction requiring that all twelve jurors agree that the State proved each criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt when the State alleges multiple acts of criminal sexual conduct?

b. Whether Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(h)(iii) (sexual penetration) and 609.343, subdivision 1(h)(iii) (sexual contact) require the jury to unanimously agree that the State proved a single act of sexual penetration and sexual contact, in addition to requiring that the State proved multiple acts of sexual abuse beyond a reasonable doubt?

(2) Whether it is plain error for a district court to allow a jury to find a defendant guilty of criminal sexual conduct based on evidence of sexual conduct that took place outside of Minnesota?

Review granted, court of appeals opinion vacated, and remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Keyes, 38 N.W.3d 21 (Minn. 2026), and State v. Yang, 38 N.W.3d 74 (Minn. 2026).

 
5.  In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Wayne Hamilton – A25-1446

 Issue: Was Hamilton prejudiced by the involvement in his appeal by retired appellate court judge Lucinda Jesson, former Commissioner of DHS who was sued by Hamilton in a class action lawsuit?

Review granted, court of appeals opinion vacated, and remanded to the court of appeals for the authoring judge to consider the petition for review as a timely motion to recuse under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 141.02(a).

 
Granted/Stayed

6.  Bay & Bay Transfer Co. Inc., d/b/a Bay @ Bay Transportation vs. Antonio Raetz, DeGroot Logistics, Inc. – A25-1345

Issue: Whether specific personal jurisdiction can be exercised over nonresident defendants by binding them to a forum-selection clause to which they are neither a party nor signatory based on the “closely related” doctrine under which the signatory and non-signatory are considered so “closely related” that it is foreseeable the non-signatory would be haled into a Minnesota court.

Stayed pending final disposition in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lahn, A25-1009.

7.  State of Minnesota vs. Deondre Demetrius Ramsey –A25-0942

Issue: Should this Court grant and stay review of whether the court reversibly erred by admitting police-officer testimony of the kind this Court will review in State v. Solomon?

Stayed pending final disposition in State v. Solomon, A23-0946.

8.  State of Minnesota vs. Jennifer Lynn Bardine – A25-0698

Issue: Since 1980, district courts considering whether to revoke probation have been told that revocation “should be used as a last resort only where treatment has failed.” In 2023, the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 609.14 to provide that “revocation shall be used as a last resort only where rehabilitation has failed.” Did the 2023 statutory changes have any substantive effect on how courts are to analyze probation violations?

Stayed pending final disposition in State v. Eastman, A25-0382.

9.  State of Minnesota vs. Joel Alejandro Escamilla – A25-0462

Issue: The rules of procedure and case law prohibit parties from removing a juror because of their race. The prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against a Hispanic juror because she provided short answers to the parties’ questions in voir dire. With respect to Batson’s third step, is this purported race-neutral explanation pretextual where the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment of the Hispanic juror vis-à-vis similarly-situated White jurors and where the explanation reflects a tacit requirement that minority jurors must satisfy a nebulous, higher standard of communication?

Stayed pending final disposition in State v. Brown, A25-0973.

Vacate/Remand

10.  In the Matter of the Denial of Duty Death Benefits for Floyd Jones – A25-0443

Issues: (1) Did the court of appeals err when it held that the phrase “killed in the line of duty” and “natural causes” are statutorily defined? (2) Did the court of appeals err when it used the term “natural causes” as a medical term instead of a legal term that has already been construed by the Minnesota Supreme Court? (3) Did the court of appeals err when it interpreted the 2016 amendment to Minnesota Statutes sections 299A.41–.44, as a massive contraction of eligibility instead of the expansion the legislature announced? (4) Did the court of appeals err by analyzing Mr. Jones’s duty status at the time of his death instead of his duty status at time of injury and exposure? (5) Did the court of appeals err by holding that public safety officers who are exposed to the same fatal hazardous stimuli may be treated differently depending on timing and manner of death?

Stay lifted, court of appeals opinion vacated, and remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of In re Groebner, 35 N.W.3d 766 (Minn. 2026) and Minn. Stat. § 299A.41, subd. 3, as amended by, Act of  May 18, 2026, ch. 97, art. 12, §§ 4-7.

11.  In the Matter of the Denial of Line of Duty Death Benefits for Dallas Edeburn –A25-0661

Issue: Does the plain language of Minnesota Statutes section 299A.41, subdivision 3, exclude deaths from natural causes from the definition of “killed in the line of duty”?

Stay lifted, court of appeals opinion vacated, and remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of In re Groebner, 35 N.W.3d 766 (Minn. 2026) and Minn. Stat. § 299A.41, subd. 3, as amended by, Act of  May 18, 2026, ch. 97, art. 12, §§ 4-7.

Denied

12. Amber Patrice Jemison, Trendell Johnson, et al. vs. Walmart, et al., City of Bloomington Minnesota, et al., Hornig Companies – A26-0574

13.  American Steel Carports INC vs. Matthew Charles Larkin – A26-0883

14.  Badger Mutual Insurance vs. Alexia Coleman, Ramell Coleman, Malaika Sanford, as parent and natural guardian of M.C., a minor – A25-1670

15.  Duane Charles Hippe, Jr. vs. Dakota County Sheriff Joe Leko – A25-1652

16.  Dujuan M Walker vs. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections John Doe, Challenge Incarceration Program Director/Designee – A25-2034

17.  Frank R. Dropps vs. Brunswick Township, et al. – A25-1506

18.  In re Alaa Elkarwily aka Alaa Elkarwily, Hesham El Ghannam vs. Alla Elkarwily aka Alaa Elkarwily, Zales Discount L.L.C. – A26-0693

19.  In Re the Marriage of: Andrea Patricia Schaap vs. Joshua Aaron Schaap, County of Dakota – A26-0801

20.  In re the Marriage of: Catrina M Rued vs. Joseph D Rued – A25-1497

21.  In re the Marriage of: David Ray Honeman vs. Carol Lynn Honeman – A25-0756

22.  In re the Marriage of: Steven Edward Stwalley vs. Leigh Anne Stwalley – A25-1331

23.  In the Matter of the Welfare of: P.K.T. Child – A25-1749

24.  Jose Luis Gutierrez vs. State of Minnesota – A25-1821

25.  Mark LaVigne vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company – A25-1837

26. Matthew Charles Larkin vs. Menard, Inc., et al., City of Mankato/Mankato Police Department (Petition for Accelerated Review) – A26-0577, A26-0798

27.  Michelle VanDyke, et al. vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company – A25-1538

28.  Peter Richard Rickmyer vs. City of Minneapolis, et al. – A26-0124

29.  Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El vs. State of Minnesota – A25-1495

30.  State of Minnesota vs. Aaron Le – A26-0482

31.  State of Minnesota vs. Anthony Lee Prellwitz – A25-1357

32.  State of Minnesota vs. Ashir Hassan Kimbrough – A24-1110

33.  State of Minnesota vs. Darla Gail Holmgren – A25-1407

34.  State of Minnesota vs. Devin Dion Tillman – A25-1968

35.  State of Minnesota vs. Dylan Craig Skinner – A25-1239

36.  State of Minnesota vs. Fredy Saavedra Olivar – A25-0936

37. State of Minnesota vs. Jeffery Lee Niemi – A25-1448

38.  State of Minnesota vs. Jesse Arthur Mollenhauer – A25-1372

39.  State of Minnesota vs. Joshua Horst Wurzbacher – A25-0630

40.  State of Minnesota vs. Leonard Steven Sanchez – A25-0950

41.  State of Minnesota vs. Randy Lee Chock –  A25-1384

42.  State of Minnesota vs. Renee Zhoushkogeshig Gale – A25-0834

43.  State of Minnesota vs. Taylor Ann Brown-Snyder – A25-1469

Denied – Filed August 14, 2026

1.  City of Saint Paul, et al. vs. Safe Homes Saint Paul, et al. (Petition for Accelerated Review) – A26-1439

Denied – Filed August 21, 2026

1.  Ronald Lee Schober vs. State of Minnesota – A25-1641

2.  Fredric A. Wilson vs. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development – A25-1701

3.  State of Minnesota vs. Raymond Boy Strong – A25-1006

4.  State of Minnesota vs. Michael Lavale Powell – A25-1151

5.  City of Blaine Police Department vs. John Mark Luedtke – A25-1605