Opinions Archive

The 2023 amendment to Minnesota Statutes section 609.14, subdivision 1(a), does not create a new or heightened standard that requires a district court, before it may revoke a defendant’s probation, to make any findings that rehabilitation has failed additional to or different from those currently required by existing caselaw. Affirmed.

Plaintiff-appellant Sherrie Ann Williams challenges the district court's order granting defendant-respondent Midwest Bonding's motion to dismiss. We affirm.

A court properly dismisses sex or sexual orientation employment-discrimination claims against a church under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) if the allegations in the complaint, construed in plaintiff’s favor, establish that the court’s adjudication of plaintiff’s claims would violate the religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment as a matter of law. Affirmed.

In this direct appeal challenging his 67-month executed sentence for felony possession of child pornography, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure because there were substantial and compelling circumstances to support a departure, including his particular amenability to probation. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the presumptive guidelines sentence, we affirm.

Appellants Rum River Timber Harvesting, Inc. (Rum River), and Amanda Willis and Nathan Willis (the Willises) appeal the district court's decision to grant summary 1 Because the Willises share a surname, when discussed individually we use their first names. 2 judgment in favor of respondents Susan Jeddeloh and Greg Jeddeloh (the Jeddelohs). Appellants argue the district court erred when it: (1) converted part of the Jeddelohs' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment; (2) granted summary judgment on Rum River's declaratory-judgment and breach-of-contract claims relying on the statute of frauds; (3) granted summary judgment on Rum River's promissory-estoppel claim on the ground that promissory estoppel cannot be used to circumvent the statute of frauds; and (4) granted summary judgment on Rum River's unjust-enrichment claim. Because we conclude the district court appropriately construed part of the Jeddelohs' motion as a motion for summary judgment, applied the statute of frauds, and granted summary judgment on Rum River's declaratory-judgment, breach-of-contract, and promissory-estoppel claims, we affirm in part. But because there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding Rum River's unjust-enrichment claim, we reverse in part and remand.

Appellant Walter Smith challenges the district court's dismissal pursuant to Rules 12.02 and 12.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure of his claims for the recovery of his security deposit, rental assistance, and associated mental-anguish damages from respondents Eric A. Johnson, Aeon Properties, and Steven Scott Properties Management. Smith also argues that the district court judge erred by not disqualifying himself due to bias. We affirm.

Appellant Travis Clay Andersen challenges the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. He argues that the district court erred by (1) determining that the petition was time-barred; (2) determining that, in any event, he is not entitled to relief on the merits; and (3) alternatively, not granting him an evidentiary hearing on his petition. We conclude that Andersen's petition was time-barred, and we therefore need not address his remaining arguments. We affirm.

Appellant Kareem INC challenges a judgment of forfeiture of tobacco products seized by respondent Minnesota Department of Revenue (DOR) from a retail store managed by Kareem. Kareem argues, first, that the district court erred by determining that the tobacco products were contraband and thus subject to forfeiture. Kareem argues, second, that the forfeiture of the tobacco products was an unconstitutionally excessive fine and that the seizure and forfeiture of the products violated Kareen's procedural-due-process rights. We affirm.

In this family law appeal concerning a parenting dispute, appellant father challenges the district court's order denying his motion to modify parenting time without an evidentiary hearing and its order denying his motion to hold respondent mother in contempt of the court's parenting-time order. Father argues: (1) that the district court abused its discretion in determining that his motion to modify parenting time was a de facto motion to modify physical custody; (2) that the court erroneously denied his motion to modify parenting time; (3) that the court abused its discretion by denying his request to change the children's surnames; and (4) that this court should order that his legal matters be separately adjudicated, that his district court and appellate filing fees be refunded, and that his case be removed from district court. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's behavior constituted harassment, we affirm.