Opinions Archive

Under Minnesota Statutes section 211B.04, subdivision 1(a) (2024), a disclaimer is “prominently include[d]” on campaign material when it is conspicuous and readily noticeable to the electorate that is the intended recipient of the material. Reversed and remanded.

Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying its motion to vacate a no-fault arbitration award. Because the arbitrator did not exceed their powers by awarding benefits to respondent, we affirm.

Appellant Lisa Breitkreutz challenges her civil commitment by the district court as a person who poses a risk of harm due to mental illness. Breitkreutz, who is self-represented in this appeal, appears to argue that (1) the district court denied her procedural and substantive due process of law; (2) the necessary elements for civil commitment were not proved because she is not a danger to herself or others, she has not been diagnosed with a mental illness, the district court did not consider less restrictive alternatives, and her commitment was based, in part, on perjured evidence; and (3) she was not provided adequate assistance of counsel. We affirm.

In this appeal from his judgment of conviction, appellant James Allen Denker challenges the validity of his guilty plea, arguing that it was (1) inaccurate and (2) involuntary. Appellant argues that he is entitled to withdraw his plea because the factual basis supporting his plea of guilt to fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance does not establish that he knowingly possessed methamphetamine. He also argues that his plea was not voluntary. We affirm.

In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.

In this certiorari appeal, relator Troy Scheffler challenges the decision of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (the Board) to dismiss four of his ten allegations. Respondents Representative Joshua Heintzeman (Heintzeman) and the Committee to Elect Josh Heintzeman (the committee) seek affirmance of the Board's dismissals. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision to dismiss the three allegations related to financial reporting by Heintzeman and the committee but conclude that the Board erred in its interpretation of Minnesota Statutes § 211B.04, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his petition to vacate his convictions for aiding and abetting attempted first-degree felony murder under a 2023 law that created a process to challenge certain felony murder convictions based on an aiding-and-abetting theory of criminal liability. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, at 864-68, amended by 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 4, §§ 19-21, at 2268-71 (the Act). He argues the district court erred by determining that there was not a reasonable probability that he was entitled to relief and denying his petition without a hearing. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's eviction judgment, arguing that its decision to evict her was erroneous, and that she was unlawfully locked out of her apartment because, she claims, the eviction was stayed by the court pending her appeal. We affirm.

In this probate dispute, appellant Gail Brinkmeier—the personal representative of the estate of Oria Brinkmeier (decedent)—argues the district court erroneously found a loan agreement existed between respondent Gloria Pofahl and decedent. Brinkmeier further asserts that, even if a loan agreement existed, Pofah''s claim against the estate was barred by the statute of limitations, or other statutes that require parties to reduce certain promises to writing. Finally, Brinkmeier argues, in the alternative, that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to reduce the amount the estate owed Pofahl. Because the district court appropriately determined an enforceable loan agreement existed and acted within its discretion when it declined to further reduce the amount owed on the loan, we affirm.

A Ramsey County jury found Morris Robert Chie Ryan guilty of attempted second- degree intentional murder and other crimes based on evidence that he fired 14 gunshots at the window of an occupied room of a home. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions, that the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct, and that the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is a harmless error. Therefore, we affirm.