Minnesota Supreme Court
ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW FILED
November 22, 2005

  • 1. State v. Daniel Edwin Jones – A04-1303 – Denied
  • 2. In the Matter of the Medical License of Robert J. Woolley, M.D., Date of Birth: 4/17/61, License Number: 33,667 – A05-33 – Denied
  • 3. State v. Jacob Michael Dolney – A04-1431 – Denied
  • 4. Willie Eddie Reynolds and Timothy J. Otis v. State – A04-2026 and A04-2075 – Denied
  • 5. Ronald Peterson, et al. v. BASF Corporation, a foreign corporation – A04-2464 – Denied
  • 6. State v. Michael Roland Starry – A04-2473 – Denied
  • 7. King Buachee Lee v. State – A04-2470 – Denied
  • 8. Sokeng Sroh v. Houth Andrew Eam – A05-2 – Denied
  • 9. Kathleen Ann Sackett v. Melissa Marie Ehrnreiter – A04-1685 – Denied
  • 10. Richard McCluhan & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Express Personnel Services of Mankato v. Shari Candies, Inc., U.S. Bank National Association – A05-161 – Denied
  • 11. State v. Antonio B. Brown – A04-1837 – Denied
  • 12. State v. Anthony Lee Nelson – A04-749 – Denied
  • 13. Mark Stephen Caron v. Ruth Ann Caron – A04-2461 – Denied
  • 14. In re Robert John Barrett, Petitioner. State v. Robert John Barrett – A05-1599 – Granted
  • 15. Roxanne Benning, as Trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Nicole Lynn Benning v. John Dolan Moore – A04-2156 – Denied
  • 16. Phillip Ray Clow, Sr. v. State – A04-2175 – Denied
  • 17. Douglas Allen Crosby v. Catrice Stotesbery – A04-2083 – Denied
  • 18. State v. Randy Scott Bendzula – A05-137 – Denied
  • 19. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Lawrence Joseph Fisher – A05-579 – Denied
  • 20. Sherry Erickson v. City of Orr – A05-481 – Denied
  • 21. In re Judy Ann Hewitt, Petitioner. State v. Judy Ann Hewitt – A05-1685 – Denied
  • 22. Clayton Hanks v. State, et al. – A05-1461 – Denied (11-23-05)
  • 23. Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., a California corporation – A05-1640
    The articulation of factors relevant to the determination whether to grant discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01 in Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2002), was not intended to require the court of appeals to apply those factors in Rule 105.01 cases other than those involving class certification issues. Nor is it our intent here to preclude the court of appeals from utilizing the Gordon factors in its discretion, where appropriate, in cases that do not involve class certification issues. Because it appears the court of appeals may have considered itself bound by the Gordon factors in deciding this case, we vacate the decision and remand for the court to decide the matter in its discretion, consistent with the principles articulated here. – Granted/Vacated/Remanded