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
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
Admitting evidence of defendant's prior shootings to show motive was not an abuse of discretion. Admitting certain gang expert testimony, if error, was harmless. Admitting grand jury testimony of a deceased witness was harmless. Imposing a harsher sentence after defendant's second trial was error under State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296, 161 N.W.2d 650 (1968). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Citation: 772 N.W.2d 459
Date:
August
20, 2009
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
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
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 district court properly considered pension payments derived from benefits earned by the obligor prior to his marriage to the obligee in calculating the obligor's ability to pay spousal maintenance. The district court properly excluded pension payments derived from benefits earned by the obligor during his marriage to the obligee and previously awarded to the obligor as marital property in calculating the obligor's ability to pay spousal maintenance. The district court properly considered pension payments derived from benefits earned by the obligor subsequent to his marriage to the obligee in calculating the obligor's ability to pay spousal maintenance. On remand, the district court shall make findings (1) supporting its award of maintenance in an amount apparently in excess of the obligee's reasonable needs, (2) supporting its choice of an effective date for its order, and (3) supporting its decision to require the obligor to secure his maintenance obligation with life insurance. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on attorney fees. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Citation: 775 N.W.2d 631
Date:
December
03, 2009
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
The personnel data provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.43 (2008), does not apply to data collected on personnel who are employees of independent contractors hired by the State. Therefore, personnel data collected by the State on employees of independent contractors is presumed public and must be disclosed upon request unless there is a specific legal exception to the data’s public nature. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Citation: 765 N.W.2d 64
Date:
May
07, 2009
The State’s improper use of evidence admitted solely for impeachment purposes did not affect appellant’s substantial rights.
Citation: 778 N.W.2d 327
Date:
February
18, 2010
The tax court correctly concluded that the Commissioner of Revenue properly assessed relator for sales tax collected but not remitted to the Department of Revenue. The tax court correctly concluded that there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article X of the Minnesota Constitution in assessing relator for collected but unremitted sales tax. Relator waived his right to challenge in this appeal the Commissioner’s use tax assessment.
Citation: 778 N.W.2d 289
Date:
February
04, 2010