skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinions Archive

Results 1 - 10 of 1299
1. The doctrine of implied primary assumption of risk does not apply to a claim in negligence for injuries arising out of the operation or patronage of a bar. 2. On a claim of innkeeper negligence, there was enough evidence on the element of foreseeability to create a disputed issue of material fact or disputed reasonable inferences from undisputed facts, making summary judgment improper. 3. On a claim of violation of the Dram Shop Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 340A.801–.802 (2018), there was enough evidence on the element of proximate cause to create a disputed issue of material fact or disputed reasonable inferences from undisputed facts, making summary judgment improper.
Date: January 23, 2019
1. Minnesota Statutes § 617.247, subd. 9 (2010), which requires an enhanced conditional-release term for a person previously convicted under section 617.247 or other statutes related to criminal sexual conduct, is unambiguous. 2. The imposition of an enhanced conditional-release term was not an abuse of discretion by the district court.
Date: January 23, 2019
The rule of Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1986), does not require litigants to move for a new trial to preserve objections to pretrial orders that decide motions in limine.
Date: January 23, 2019
The doctrine of implied primary assumption of risk does not apply to a claim in negligence for injuries arising out of recreational downhill skiing and snowboarding.
Date: January 23, 2019
Appellant challenges his conviction of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, arguing that the district court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a witness regarding the state’s grant of use immunity and by allowing an officer to testify regarding the operation of vehicles with manual transmissions. We affirm.
Date: January 22, 2019
In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for fourth-degree driving while impaired by a controlled substance, appellant argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress the results of a warrantless chemical test of his urine because (1) the misleading advisory invalidated his consent under the Fourth Amendment and (2) the reading of the inaccurate implied-consent advisory violated his right to due process. The state opposes relief on either claim on several grounds including the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. We reverse and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the court to make necessary factual findings on both the Fourth Amendment and due-process issues.
Date: January 22, 2019
Appellant stipulated to respondent’s case pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, to obtain review of the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that resulted in his conviction of one count of first-degree possession of a controlled substance. He challenges his conviction on the ground that he was stopped in an area outside the jurisdiction of the officer who stopped him. Because we see no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, we affirm. In a pro se brief, appellant raises issues that are not properly before us, and we decline to address them.
Date: January 22, 2019
Appellant Dmitri M. Medvedovski (father) challenges the district court’s May 15, 2017 order, awarding respondent Nadezhda Ivanovna Medvedovski (mother) conduct- based attorney fees. Father also challenges the district court’s April 13, 2018 order, declining to consider father’s responsive motion as untimely, denying father’s motions to hold mother in contempt, and awarding mother conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm.
Date: January 22, 2019
Appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court’s order dismissing two counts of receiving stolen property for lack of probable cause. In a cross-appeal, respondent Alyssa Rose Knoblauch challenges the district court’s order denying her motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant. We affirm the district
Date: January 22, 2019
Appellant D&J Family Farm L.L.C. appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents and dismissing appellant’s appeal of benefits and damages. We deny appellant’s motion to strike and affirm the district court.
Date: January 22, 2019
back to top