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 402
Under Minnesota Statutes section 211B.04, subdivision 1(a) (2024), a disclaimer is “prominently include[d]” on campaign material when it is conspicuous and readily noticeable to the electorate that is the intended recipient of the material. Reversed and remanded.
Date:
January
12, 2026
appeal from a postconviction order denying motion to withdraw plea of guilty to second-degree controlled-substance crime
Date:
March
05, 2002
For possession of pornographic work involving a minor, cloud storage is a “storage system of any other type” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2020). Affirmed.
Date:
January
20, 2026
challenges indeterminate commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person
Date:
October
12, 2004
To justify a district court’s inclusion of out-of-state convictions in a defendant’s criminal-history score, the State of Minnesota does not satisfy its burden of establishing the validity of the convictions and that the defendant was the person involved by relying solely on a presentence investigation report that does not meet the standard set forth in Minnesota Rule of Evidence 1005. Reversed and remanded.
Date:
January
20, 2026
challenge motion for dismissal
Date:
October
12, 2004
Appellant Urdain Augustin argues his guilty plea was inaccurate because he negated an essential element of the offense during his plea colloquy. We reverse and remand.
Date:
January
20, 2026
Affirm the conviction and remand to consider the application, if any, of Blakely v. Washington to appellant's sentence.
Date:
October
12, 2004
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
Date:
January
20, 2026
State appeals pretrial order suppressing evidence and dismissing charges of driving after revocation, failure to provide vehicle insurance, and unlawful use of an unregistered vehicle. Reversed and remanded.
Date:
October
05, 2004