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 47
In Minnesota’s game and fish laws, the definition of "taking" in Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 47 (2014), applies to "take" in Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1 (2014). A jury could reasonably conclude that a person who sat in a camouflaged ATV blind in a field during deer hunting season, wore blaze orange, and had a loaded gun next to him, was "pursuing" or "attempting to take" deer, and therefore violated Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1.
Citation: 859 N.W.2d 816
Date: February 25, 2015
A conservation officer approaching an open boat while it rests on the trailer of a parked portage truck and asking the occupants whether they had caught any fish is not a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. When the occupant of an open boat admits to having been fishing and transporting fish in the boat orother conveyance used to transport wild animals, but refuses to present the catch for inspection, a nonconsensual search of the areas of an open boat where fish are typically transported is constitutionally permissible. Refusing to allow such an inspection is a violation of Minn. Stat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3) (2000). Reversed.
Citation: 669 N.W.2d 1
Date: September 25, 2003
1. The plain language of Minnesota Statutes § 634.03 (2020) requires a defendant’s confession to be corroborated by independent evidence reasonably tending to prove that the specific offense charged has been committed. 2. Because the State failed to introduce evidence independent of respondent’s confession that reasonably tended to prove that one specific incident of criminal sexual conduct was committed, respondent cannot be convicted of that specific charge because his confession to it was not sufficiently corroborated. Affirmed.
Citation: 966 N.W.2d 803
Date: November 17, 2021
Minnesota Statutes section 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(2) (1998) requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm under circumstances that endangered the safety of another person, but knowledge of the endangerment is not a required element of proof. Affirmed.
Citation: 590 N.W.2d 773
Date: April 01, 1999
1. A reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety, which is necessary for an exception to the knock and announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment, exists where a search warrant affidavit discloses the presence of drug paraphernalia and that incident to a search three months earlier numerous weapons were seized. 2. Officers were not required to abandon plan for unannounced entry based on threshold reappraisal of situation. Affirmed.
Citation: 615 N.W.2d 316
Date: August 03, 2000
Appellant, in seeking to have his convictions for first-degree murder and child endangerment overturned, raises issues previously decided and arguments previously rejected in prior decisions by this court. Absent compelling reasons, this court will not overturn those prior decisions. Affirmed.
Citation: 558 N.W.2d 474
Date: January 16, 1997
1. Tax court’s finding that taxpayer was a Minnesota resident in 1998 and 1999 was justified by the evidence. 2. Tax court’s finding that taxpayer failed to prove that fraud penalties were improper was not justified by the evidence.
Citation: 711 N.W.2d 491
Date: March 30, 2006
The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel because there is no reasonable probability that the introduction of certain out-of-court statements made by the victim to police affected the outcome of the trial. The trial court’s error, if any, in admitting certain statements made by appellant’s sister and his girlfriend to police was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Citation: 826 N.W.2d 775
Date: February 27, 2013
The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied relief on the first six claims raised in appellant's second postconviction petition because all of these claims lack merit. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when, after an evidentiary hearing, it denied appellant a new trial on the basis of new evidence that would be offered to exculpate appellant because the evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
Citation: 763 N.W.2d 17
Date: March 26, 2009
Sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the tax court's conclusion that relator husband was a domiciliary of Minnesota during the tax years at issue and therefore was a Minnesota resident for income tax purposes.
Citation: 753 N.W.2d 698
Date: July 31, 2008
back to top