skip to content
Primary navigation

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

Help with searching

Results 1 - 10 of 474
When a district court defers finalizing an order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of a child to a relative so that eligibility of the relative for Northstar kinship assistance can be determined, the order is not a final, appealable order under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1.
Date: January 08, 2024
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.), preempts breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims alleging that the fee an airline charges for reissuing a ticket is an illegal penalty under Minnesota law.
Date: February 08, 2000
These consolidated appeals arise from related trust-instruction proceedings brought by respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and respondent U.S. Bank National Association. The trust-instruction proceedings were filed after the trust’s servicers distributed and later clawed back funds from the trust’s junior certificate holders to fund reserves for the trust’s anticipated litigation expenses. The primary issue below was whether the trust’s governing contract permitted the creation of those reserves. The district court determined that it did and granted summary judgment against the junior certificate holders. Because we discern no error in the district court’s construction of the contract or consideration of the record, we affirm. 2
Date: January 08, 2024
A commission under a real estate contract is not recoverable from the seller where the buyer refuses to purchase the property.
Date: February 29, 2000
These consolidated appeals are taken from judgment in favor of respondent following a bench trial. Appellants challenge a number of the district court’s rulings and argue that the evidence cannot sustain the judgment against them. We affirm.
Date: February 12, 2024
1. Provisions in the assigned claims plan that require an insurer to pay basic economic loss benefits apply to a claim for benefits that arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the Red Lake Reservation and involved an uninsured motor vehicle that was licensed and registered under the laws of the Red Lake Reservation. 2. Under the assigned claims plan, the minor children of the owner of an uninsured automobile may obtain basic economic loss benefits for losses arising out of injury to the owner of the uninsured automobile.
Date: February 15, 2000
Minnesota Statutes section 65A.10, subdivision 1 (2022), requires replacement cost insurance to cover the cost of repairing any loss or damaged property in accordance with the minimum state or local codes, which, “[i]n the case of a partial loss,” includes only “the damaged portion of the property.” When an insurance policy covers the cost of replacing damaged roof shingles, but the shingles cannot be replaced according to code unless repairs are made to roof decking that was not damaged by the insured event, section 65A.10, subdivision 1, requires the insurer to also cover the cost of repairing the roof decking. Affirmed.
Date: February 05, 2024
When a party moves to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, the only question reviewable is whether the arbitrator addressed an arbitrable issue; a court may not examine the record or evidence underlying the arbitration award, or otherwise delve into the merits of the award.
Date: February 01, 2000
In these consolidated appeals, appellant-father challenges the district court’s decision to grant respondent-mother’s petition on behalf of their child for an order for protection (OFP) and to issue an OFP against him. Father appears to assert that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion because the court: (1) failed to proceed under the juvenile-protection provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, which would have provided him the assistance of counsel; (2) failed to apply the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard; (3) misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (4) issued the OFP based on a determination of domestic abuse that lacked sufficient evidentiary support; and (5) erroneously admitted mother’s hearsay testimony. We affirm.
Date: February 12, 2024
In a criminal sexual conduct trial the prosecutor moved for closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two juvenile victims. Appellant did not object and instead agreed to a limited closure. The trial court made no finding of necessity for closure, but appellant's failure to object and his agreement waived any error that could be predicated on the lack of findings.
Date: February 01, 2000
back to top