Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions

Orders on Petitions for Further Review

Granted

1.  Minnesota Attorney General’s Office vs. Schierholz and Associates, Inc., d/b/a Broadmoor Valley, Paul Milton Schierholz – A25-2192

Issues: (1) Does the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“MDTPA”) apply to residential leases? (2) Where a civil enforcement matter brought by the State of Minnesota predominately seeks to recover penalties, does the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07, subd. 2 for penal claims apply? (3) Does the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (“MCFA”) impose strict liability? (4) Was Minn. Stat. § 327.20, subd. 1(1) unconstitutionally vague as applied to Petitioner, where the State presented evidence and prevailed on a theory that was not part of any pre-litigation notice or enforcement action under the statute? (5) Should the fee award to Defendants under the Minnesota Equal Access to Justice Act be affirmed?

Granted/Stayed

2.  State of Minnesota vs. Jason Clayton Adam Bailey – A25-2111

Issues: (1) Does Minn. Stat. § 609.14, as amended in 2023, require a district court to determine that rehabilitation has failed before revoking probation, or does the amendment impose no requirement beyond the preexisting Austin/Modtland analysis? (2) May a district court conclude that correctional treatment can most effectively be provided in confinement, and that revocation is necessary under the third Austin factor, based on one relapse after more than three years of violation-free probation and successful community treatment, without identifying treatment available in confinement or explaining why the probationer’s specific proposed community treatment is inadequate? (3) Does Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 1a, preclude execution of Bailey’s stayed sentence for his first probation violation—unauthorized controlled-substance use—when the State withdrew the alleged new-law violation and Bailey had no prior probation or intermediate-sanction violation in any open criminal case?

Stayed pending final disposition in State v. Eastman, No. A25-0382.

3.  State of Minnesota vs. Mykell Steffon Burton – A26-0104

Issue: May a court revoke probation only if it considers rehabilitation interests and concludes that revocation has failed, pursuant to the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 609.14 (2023)?

Stayed pending final disposition in State v. Eastman, No. A25-0382.

Denied

4.  Ciara Effrey Fawn vs. Jarred Isaac Mosdal – A25-2019

5.  Daniel Quinones vs. Saint Paul College – A26-0028

6.  In re the Marriage of: Corey Andrew Stern vs. Rachel Ruth Stern – A25-1806 

7.  In re the Marriage of: Julie Karen Johnson vs. Thomas Francis Johnson, Jr. – A25-0350, A25-2054

8.  In re the Marriage of: Nathaniel William Shea vs. Sabine Marie-Luise Shea – A25-1672

9.  In re the Marriage of: Stefanie R. Varga vs. Michael E. Kangas – A25-1521

10.  In Re the Marriage of: Veronica Velazquez vs. Amin Foued Abdelwahed, Hennepin County – A26 1218

11.  Joe Hoffman vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty – A25-1982

12.  Maria Olson, Shannon Olson vs. Christensen Law Office PLLC, et al. – A26-0015

13.  Menard, Inc., et al. vs. Vetka USA, LLC (Minnesota), et al., Nicholas Sperling, et al. – A26-1382

14.  Michael James Rye vs. State of Minnesota – A26-0444

15.  Omar Auquil Muhammad vs. State of Minnesota – A25-1663

16.  Pioneer Bank vs. Ward E. Jackson – A25-1884

17.  State of Minnesota vs. Andreas Jeffrey Joyner – A25-1619

18.  State of Minnesota vs. Dante Tyree Perez – A25-1772

19.  State of Minnesota vs. Gary Allen Kachina – A26-1491

20.  State of Minnesota vs. Jason Leonard Moe – A25-1374

21.  State of Minnesota vs. Jesus Manuel Santana Acosta – A25-1805

22.  State of Minnesota vs. Nathan Leonard Hernandez – A25-1553

23.  State of Minnesota vs. Nicholas Alphonzo Harris – A25-2132