Search Site
Search Opinions
Browse Opinions by Date
Special-Term Orders
About Content
This archive includes orders decided by the Court of Appeals at its Special-Term Session, the weekly calendar where a panel of three Court of Appeals judges considers jurisdictional and procedural matters. This archive does not include orders before January 1, 2023 or orders that were not decided at Special Term. Orders not included in this archive may be accessed via the Minnesota Appellate Courts’ public access system, PMACS.
Search Briefs
Search Articles
Results 1 - 10 of 49
The definition of “public place” under Minn. Stat. § 624.7181, subdivision 1(c) (2024), includes the interior of a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Affirmed.
Citation: 17 N.W.3d 150
Date:
February
19, 2025
A conservation officer approaching an open boat while it rests on the trailer of a parked portage truck and asking the occupants whether they had caught any fish is not a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. When the occupant of an open boat admits to having been fishing and transporting fish in the boat orother conveyance used to transport wild animals, but refuses to present the catch for inspection, a nonconsensual search of the areas of an open boat where fish are typically transported is constitutionally permissible. Refusing to allow such an inspection is a violation of Minn. Stat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3) (2000). Reversed.
Citation: 669 N.W.2d 1
Date:
September
25, 2003
In Minnesota’s game and fish laws, the definition of "taking" in Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 47 (2014), applies to "take" in Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1 (2014). A jury could reasonably conclude that a person who sat in a camouflaged ATV blind in a field during deer hunting season, wore blaze orange, and had a loaded gun next to him, was "pursuing" or "attempting to take" deer, and therefore violated Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1.
Citation: 859 N.W.2d 816
Date:
February
25, 2015
1. A reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety, which is necessary for an exception to the knock and announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment, exists where a search warrant affidavit discloses the presence of drug paraphernalia and that incident to a search three months earlier numerous weapons were seized. 2. Officers were not required to abandon plan for unannounced entry based on threshold reappraisal of situation. Affirmed.
Citation: 615 N.W.2d 316
Date:
August
03, 2000
Minnesota Statutes section 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(2) (1998) requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm under circumstances that endangered the safety of another person, but knowledge of the endangerment is not a required element of proof. Affirmed.
Citation: 590 N.W.2d 773
Date:
April
01, 1999
1. The plain language of Minnesota Statutes § 634.03 (2020) requires a defendant’s confession to be corroborated by independent evidence reasonably tending to prove that the specific offense charged has been committed. 2. Because the State failed to introduce evidence independent of respondent’s confession that reasonably tended to prove that one specific incident of criminal sexual conduct was committed, respondent cannot be convicted of that specific charge because his confession to it was not sufficiently corroborated. Affirmed.
Citation: 966 N.W.2d 803
Date:
November
17, 2021
Appellant, in seeking to have his convictions for first-degree murder and child endangerment overturned, raises issues previously decided and arguments previously rejected in prior decisions by this court. Absent compelling reasons, this court will not overturn those prior decisions. Affirmed.
Citation: 558 N.W.2d 474
Date:
January
16, 1997
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a property owner would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain without payment a cabin and associated fixtures and furnishings paid for by the property owner’s former partner during their cohabitating, marriage-like relationship and intended for their shared use and enjoyment. Affirmed.
Citation: 9 N.W.3d 567
Date:
July
24, 2024
1. Tax court’s finding that taxpayer was a Minnesota resident in 1998 and 1999 was justified by the evidence. 2. Tax court’s finding that taxpayer failed to prove that fraud penalties were improper was not justified by the evidence.
Citation: 711 N.W.2d 491
Date:
March
30, 2006
The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied relief on the first six claims raised in appellant's second postconviction petition because all of these claims lack merit. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when, after an evidentiary hearing, it denied appellant a new trial on the basis of new evidence that would be offered to exculpate appellant because the evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
Citation: 763 N.W.2d 17
Date:
March
26, 2009