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 500
1. When a professional-liability insurer and an insured are both parties to an action to resolve that insured’s coverage, the claimant in the underlying action and other insureds do not need to be parties for the dispute to be justiciable under the Minnesota Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 555.01-.16 (2024). 2. The insured law firm did not have coverage under the insurance policy because no claim was “deemed made” during the policy period when, under the language of the policy, the claim was “deemed made” earlier and could only be “deemed made” once. Affirmed; motion denied.
Date:
March
10, 2025
The town board of supervisors erred by denying a property owner’s application for direct private access to a public road because the town board’s reasons for its decision are not within the regulatory purposes specified in Minnesota Statutes section 160.18, subdivision 3 (2022), which gives property owners a right of direct private access to an abutting public highway, subject to reasonable regulation as necessary to achieve certain regulatory purposes, or are not supported by evidence in the record. Reversed and remanded; motions denied.
Citation: 999 N.W.2d 915
Date:
December
18, 2023
1. When establishing a mandatory cartway under Minnesota Statutes section 164.08, subdivision 2 (2024), a town has implied authority to impose appropriate conditions on the construction, opening, and use of the cartway. 2. Damages under section 164.08, subdivision 2(c), may include a town’s attorney fees incurred in connection with an appeal of a resolution establishing a cartway as well as engineer costs incurred to supervise cartway construction because both are a “cost of professional and other services . . . and other costs and expenses which the town may incur in connection with the proceedings for the establishment of the cartway.” Affirmed and remanded
Date:
February
18, 2025
This appeal arises from appellant Cheath Tek’s convictions of first-degree impaired driving, second-degree assault, and fleeing from police. Tek contends that the co- prosecutors violated his right to a fair trial by repeatedly framing the law and his alleged conduct in terms of character during their opening statement and closing argument. We hold that the prosecutors’ thematic “care a little” approach to the trial in advising the jury that the law requires only that everyone must “care a little bit about other people,” that Tek’s conduct showed that he “didn’t care” about others, and that jurors should “be the ones who care” by finding Tek guilty, constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. We also hold, however, that the misconduct did not affect Tek’s substantial rights because the overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the jury’s careful decision-making convinces us that the jury rendered its verdict uninfluenced by the misconduct. We therefore affirm.
Date:
December
26, 2023
The state may appeal as of right from a final order granting a petition to vacate a second-degree unintentional-felony-murder conviction under the procedure established by 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, at 864–68, and as amended by 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 4, §§ 19–21, at 2268–71, as an appeal from an order granting postconviction relief under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(3). Appeal to proceed.
Citation: 16 N.W.3d 126
Date:
January
21, 2025
In this appeal from the district court’s post-dissolution order awarding custody and establishing child support, appellant argues that the district court erred by awarding joint * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. physical custody and in determining the amount of child support. First, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody. Second, we conclude that the district court committed several errors in its calculation of child support. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Date:
January
08, 2024
1. In assessing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a court resolves conflicting evidence in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction. 2. A foreign corporation’s business dealings with its exclusive product distributor in Minnesota may be relevant to assess the foreign corporation’s contacts with Minnesota where those business dealings give rise or relate to a claim for liability connected to that product. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Citation: 16 N.W.3d 807
Date:
January
13, 2025
Appellant challenges a district court order sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges based on his refusal to submit to a breath test after being arrested for suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI). He argues that his right to counsel was not vindicated, that he timely changed his mind after his initial refusal to submit to a breath test, and that his due-process rights were violated. We affirm.
Date:
January
08, 2024
A defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness at a trial for criminal offenses the defendant allegedly committed against the witness if the record shows that the witness would not have been available to testify at some reasonable point during the trial and that the defendant intentionally procured the witness’s unavailability by wrongdoing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Date:
February
24, 2025
In this direct appeal, appellant challenges his conviction for introducing a dangerous weapon into jail. He argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the district court erred in its jury instructions. We affirm.
Date:
January
08, 2024