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 22
The Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.17 (2008), authorizes parties to a business contract to sue for business discrimination in the performance of that contract, but does not create claims for persons not parties to the contract.
Citation: 781 N.W.2d 858
Date:
April
29, 2010
The district court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury that a witness was an accomplice as a matter of law because the facts did not establish conclusively that the witness could have been indicted for and convicted of the same crime as appellant. The district court’s decision to allow a witness whose credibility was questioned at the witness’s own trial to testify was not error, because at the witness’ own trial, the State did not question the witness’s credibility on the parts of the testimony elicited at this trial. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct.
Citation: 759 N.W.2d 900
Date:
January
29, 2009
In order to appeal under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-.69 (2008), service must be made within the statutory 30-day appeal period either personally or by certified mail. Service by first-class mail is not effective service under the statute.
Citation: 759 N.W.2d 406
Date:
January
15, 2009
An inventory search of a motor vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the police improperly impounded the vehicle of a driver who was cited but not arrested for two misdemeanor traffic offenses when the only justification for impoundment was protection of property, and the driver had requested permission to make reasonable alternative arrangements for the disposition of the vehicle. The state waived its automobile exception argument when the argument was raised for the first time on appeal and the record was not sufficiently developed to allow this court to address the issue. Reversed and remanded.
Citation: 752 N.W.2d 496
Date:
July
10, 2008
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of flight to show consciousness of guilt. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited gang evidence and gang expert testimony. The prosecutor did not commit reversible error during opening statement, closing argument, or questioning of witnesses. The punishment of life in prison without the possibility of release for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder was not cruel or unusual punishment in violation of the Minnesota Constitution.
Citation: 777 N.W.2d 739
Date:
January
21, 2010
The evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.
Citation: 776 N.W.2d 709
Date:
January
07, 2010
In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a pattern of child or domestic abuse, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt a sufficient number of underlying acts of abuse to constitute a pattern. The evidence was sufficient to meet that standard. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Citation: 773 N.W.2d 81
Date:
October
08, 2009
The tax on title insurance premiums under Minn. Stat. § 60A.15 (1998) and § 297I.05 (2006) applies to the full amount of the premium charged by the insurance company and filed with the Commissioner of Commerce, including portions of the premium retained by agents.
Citation: 757 N.W.2d 874
Date:
December
04, 2008
1. Where the State asserts that a suspect did not invoke the right to counsel during custodial interrogation because the suspect did not speak loudly enough to be heard, the applicable test is whether the suspect articulated his desires to have counsel present sufficiently clearly so that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. 2. A reasonable officer would have heard the defendant's request for a lawyer in this case, and the district court's error in admitting a confession that was obtained after the request had been made was not harmless. Reversed.
Citation: 784 N.W.2d 355
Date:
June
30, 2010
Access to previously unavailable evidence-gathering equipment constitutes sufficient new information to provide probable cause to issue a search warrant for a previously searched location. Evidence was sufficient to support jury verdict for first-degree premeditated murder. Conviction for first-degree felony murder is vacated. Jury instructions on first-degree murder in the course of committing certain crimes were not reversible error. Allegedly newly-discovered evidence does not require a new trial. None of appellant’s pro se arguments require reversal. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Citation: 768 N.W.2d 335
Date:
July
16, 2009